• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

Is protesting at funerals 'Free Speech'?


  • Total voters
    45
Protesting at funerals is propbably covered as "free speech" yet it is reprehensible and disgusting and morally corrupt and only engaged by the lowest forms of life such as bacteria and Communists, real Comminists.

yay, i'm the lowest form of life, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, im a real Comminist
 
Depends on the state and person. Threatening to kill the President of the United States is punishable to up to five years in prison.
It's also the only death threat I know of that is completely set in stone as illegal.
 
What if someone like Hitler or Osama were actually caught and there was a funeral, would it be okay to protest?
 
It's distasteful, but protected as long as they are not interfering with the funeral.
 
What if someone like Hitler or Osama were actually caught and there was a funeral, would it be okay to protest?

No. . .If preserving the peace at my husband's funeral means that protesters should be banned from someone else's funeral then that's fine by me.

No one has to protest AT someone's funeral in order to protest that person's actual actions or political reign - there is a time and place. Preferably the time to protest a vile dictator is WHEN they're in office. It does no good when they're dead.
 
I recognize that's it seems to be protected as Free Speech, but I'm sure there are legalities about harrassment, intentional infliction of emotional pain, hate speech, etc. I am quite sure we could open the floodgates with lawsuits; I'm surprised this hasn't been done before.

For the record, I am quite familiar with this group. They are based in Topeka, which is about an hour drive from where I live now and 30 minutes from where I grew up. Throughout my life, I've seen the Phelps' protest at the mall, pre-schools, churches and even my own college graduation.
 
They also have the right to have their asses beat.
 
That's not actually a right as much as it is assault.

it's a risk of free speech, not a right. You have the right to speak, but your speech may result in getting your ass kicked. Of course, the ass kicker will likely get arrested, but such is life in a country with 1st amendment rights.
 
it's a risk of free speech, not a right. You have the right to speak, but your speech may result in getting your ass kicked. Of course, the ass kicker will likely get arrested, but such is life in a country with 1st amendment rights.

I mean, yeah that's a practical outcome. You may piss enough people off to get your ass beat. But it's not legal, you can't beat someone's ass because they're being retarded and ignorant. If you could, the business and psychology departments would be ****ed! Dumb bastards. But you can't, it's illegal. And yes, while someone may beat someone up over what they are saying, the one committing the assault can be arrested and jailed for assault.
 
I mean, yeah that's a practical outcome. You may piss enough people off to get your ass beat. But it's not legal, you can't beat someone's ass because they're being retarded and ignorant. If you could, the business and psychology departments would be ****ed! Dumb bastards. But you can't, it's illegal. And yes, while someone may beat someone up over what they are saying, the one committing the assault can be arrested and jailed for assault.

Yep. It isn't enshrined in our constitution, and yet, it's distinctly American. :mrgreen:
 
I mean, yeah that's a practical outcome. You may piss enough people off to get your ass beat. But it's not legal, you can't beat someone's ass because they're being retarded and ignorant. If you could, the business and psychology departments would be ****ed! Dumb bastards. But you can't, it's illegal. And yes, while someone may beat someone up over what they are saying, the one committing the assault can be arrested and jailed for assault.

That's because you don't have a right to kick someones ass, but everyone has the inalienable right to get their ass kicked. :lol::2razz:
 
I'm sure you've heard the story:

FOXNews.com - Father of Dead Marine Wages Court Battle Against Funeral Protests

What do you think? Is protesting at funerals free speech that should be protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

An excerpt from the story:

Not everyone is on Snyder's side, even if they find Westboro's protests loathsome.

They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land -- 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md.

The protesters -- Phelps and six family members -- broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.

Jonathan M. Turley, a George Washington University law professor, asked his constitutional law class to grapple with the case. At first, the entire class was sympathetic to Snyder. But after they dug deeper, they concluded that Westboro's speech was protected by the First Amendment.

"Once you get down to trying to draw the line between privacy and free speech, it becomes clear that a ruling against Westboro could create the danger of a slippery slope for future courts," Turley said.

Turley, who studies the Supreme Court closely, said it's difficult to predict how the justices will rule.

Phelps-Roper has no doubt the court will favor Westboro. "If that case can prevail, there is no First Amendment left," she said.

Some military families see no reason why such protests cannot be restricted.

"I don't think these people should be allowed to come in and disrupt a family's grief," said Diane Salyers of Sims, Ark., whose son's funeral was picketed by Westboro in 2007. Snyder "speaks for all of us who've been affected by these people."

I think since the father didn't know of the protests till he turned on the TV, it's not much of a case.

The Phelps' are an annoyance, and need to be ignored. Nobody cares what they think.
 
I mean, yeah that's a practical outcome. You may piss enough people off to get your ass beat. But it's not legal, you can't beat someone's ass because they're being retarded and ignorant. If you could, the business and psychology departments would be ****ed! Dumb bastards. But you can't, it's illegal. And yes, while someone may beat someone up over what they are saying, the one committing the assault can be arrested and jailed for assault.
Not so fast Ikari, if someone is driven to fight through use of words that would incense the typical normative person it's called fighting words and is a valid defense in court.

For instance if a white guy calls a black guy the N word directly to his face in an angry tone then proceeds to get the **** kicked out of him, a battery did not occur for the purposes of conviction of the black guy because the insult would be considered fighting words. If I had children and someone endangered or disrespected them I would hurt the aggressor, so it would reason I would do that moreso if my children had passed and they did the insulting at their funeral.
 
Not so fast Ikari, if someone is driven to fight through use of words that would incense the typical normative person it's called fighting words and is a valid defense in court.

For instance if a white guy calls a black guy the N word directly to his face in an angry tone then proceeds to get the **** kicked out of him, a battery did not occur for the purposes of conviction of the black guy because the insult would be considered fighting words. If I had children and someone endangered or disrespected them I would hurt the aggressor, so it would reason I would do that moreso if my children had passed and they did the insulting at their funeral.

Wouldn't the slogan on placards, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" be construed as "fighting words"? If it were my soldier son being buried, especially if I was a practicing Christian, I'd certainly feel like wrapping that placard around a Phelps. It might not be the right reaction, but who would sit on a jury and convict me?
 
On the surface, there is nothing wrong with this.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from offense.
True, however some violence that could naturally occur may likewise be protected dependent on the context and the offense.

Wouldn't the slogan on placards, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" be construed as "fighting words"? If it were my soldier son being buried, especially if I was a practicing Christian, I'd certainly feel like wrapping that placard around a Phelps. It might not be the right reaction, but who would sit on a jury and convict me?
I think it construes fighting words personally, and would fully understand the offended lashing out. However it's an issue that would be decided on the court level so the test is completely dependent on the prosecuter, judge, jury, and possibly further appeal. The quick answer is there is no way to tell without a legal decision.
 
Wouldn't the slogan on placards, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" be construed as "fighting words"?
Not generally. 'Fightng words' are different than distateful taunting.
 
Not generally. 'Fightng words' are different than distateful taunting.
One could make the case that because of the nature of the funeral and the nature of language there was a time/place/manner argument towards that effect. It's all dependent on the legal factors of the defense case though because a battery would have to occur for "fighting words" to be an issue.
 
I can't imagine them being allowed to do it here. I know all you American's will complain but I am glad. One of our reporters went over and filmed these people. The were wanting gays to die and even picketing their funerals with their hate...and I suspect that is why it would not be allowed here - incitement to hate, and I am glad.
 
One could make the case that because of the nature of the funeral and the nature of language there was a time/place/manner argument towards that effect. It's all dependent on the legal factors of the defense case though because a battery would have to occur for "fighting words" to be an issue.
Yes -- you need to look at what else has been construed as fighting words and compare this to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom