• 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'?

  • No, this was never the intent of the founding fathers!

    Votes: 2 4.4%

  • It's harassment and should be illegal

    Votes: 20 44.4%

  • It's open to interpretation

    Votes: 4 8.9%

  • It's most certainly a form of protected free speech

    Votes: 14 31.1%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 5 11.1%
  • Total voters
    45
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that emotions can be hard to control. But words are merely words and can cause no physical harm. Those who act out are the ones who infringe upon the rights first. I think that we've forgotten that. In many ways I think we used to be a lot tougher and patient than we are now. I guess it's a product of the "give it now" mentality we've fallen to. Instead of being men and accepting the consequences of freedom; we seek to insulate ourselves from those consequences.

Now, I will say there's a difference between being in a 1-1 fight and assault.
 
Disrespectful? Hell yeah.
Illegal? Hell no.

As rude as the church members are, they have the right to conduct there hateful little protest. They are not inciting violence or advocating murder or hurting anybody, they are just being dicks and applauding the death of US Soldiers. Disrespectful, but within their rights.
 
Goobieman said:
Not generally. 'Fightng words' are different than distateful taunting.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the location factor into play, too? "Thank God for Dead soldiers" isn't likely to, "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" in the Westboro church itself, but I can guarantee that if they are uttered at a fallen soldier's funeral, their going to inflict injury upon the soldier's family.
 
Tucker Case said:
Doesn't the location factor into play, too? "Thank God for Dead soldiers" isn't likely to, "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" in the Westboro church itself, but I can guarantee that if they are uttered at a fallen soldier's funeral, their going to inflict injury upon the soldier's family.
Click to expand...

Injury as in emotional?
 
Ikari said:
I think that emotions can be hard to control. But words are merely words and can cause no physical harm. Those who act out are the ones who infringe upon the rights first. I think that we've forgotten that. In many ways I think we used to be a lot tougher and patient than we are now. I guess it's a product of the "give it now" mentality we've fallen to. Instead of being men and accepting the consequences of freedom; we seek to insulate ourselves from those consequences.

Now, I will say there's a difference between being in a 1-1 fight and assault.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of curtailing speech, but fighting words have merit. For instance, there are two ways to say "I'm gonna kick your ass", if I said it to a friend calmly after he pranked me, then we laugh, it's not fighting words; however if I say it to a stranger in a bar after he spills my drink and it's an obviously angry tone, it could be construed as assault if he feels endangered, as well if he took a pre-emptive strike it could fall under self-defense since he felt threatened.

I see no difference here. If the Westboro cult expressed their message on Main St. in the middle of town then I'd say it's absolutely protected(although I wouldn't mind seeing a Toyota with a stuck gas pedal jumpt the curb and run them over) but saying that in front of grieving relatives in their time of vulnerability at the funeral is such a test of Time/Place/Manner that I think it warrants further discussion than simply proclaiming it free speech.
 
Tucker Case said:
Doesn't the location factor into play, too? "Thank God for Dead soldiers" isn't likely to, "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" in the Westboro church itself, but I can guarantee that if they are uttered at a fallen soldier's funeral, their going to inflict injury upon the soldier's family.
Click to expand...
I suppose it could... but then, this same argument could be aplied to burning the US flag just outside the main gates of the Marine base at Quantico.
 
I've agreed with Goobie twice today. Now I'm wondering if I remembered to take my pill this morning.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I've agreed with Goobie twice today. Now I'm wondering if I remembered to take my pill this morning.
Click to expand...

Certain issues seem to be very non-partisan.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Certain issues seem to be very non-partisan.
Click to expand...

Oh, definitely, the left leans towards diminished freedom of speech in the guise of "hate speech" laws. And, the far right can, as well, as they try to stifle speech that offends them, like flag burning.

I tend to lean towards the constitution in all issues.
 
Goobieman said:
I suppose it could... but then, this same argument could be aplied to burning the US flag just outside the main gates of the Marine base at Quantico.
Click to expand...

Depends. One could easily find tons of psychological evidence to show that having someone gloating about the death of a loved one at said loved one's funeral will almost definitely inflict a severe emotional injury upon a person, and the data would likely show that these emotional injuries would be almost universal. (i.e. if someone did it to the people of Westboro when one of their loved one's passes away, they'd be very likely receive an emotional injury as well). Almost everyone would have a similar reaction, at least in the US. (Other cultures may view death differently, and some even view it as a positive, but the US is not such a culture)


However, it's not so easy to argue that the burning of a symbol will inflict the same degree of emotional injury, and it is well nigh impossible to show that this reaction would be almost universal in the US. It's well known that not everyone will receive an emotional injury from such actions.

This situation is slightly different due to the nature of bereavement.

I would say, however, that burning a flag outside of a fallen soldiers funeral would be likely to inflict an emotional wound on the bereaved.

At the same time, I would say protesting outside of Quantico with a sign that says Thank God for Dead Soldiers would also qualify as "fighting words".
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh, definitely, the left leans towards diminished freedom of speech in the guise of "hate speech" laws. And, the far right can, as well, as they try to stifle speech that offends them, like flag burning.

I tend to lean towards the constitution in all issues.
Click to expand...

Do you really need freedom of speech to the extent that you can shout obscenities while people are burying their dead as I have seen these people do?
 
alexa said:
Do you really need freedom of speech to the extent that you can shout obscenities while people are buying their dead as I have seen these people do?
Click to expand...

In short? Yes.

I would rather hear people shouting obscenities while I bury my child than see the government restrain free speech.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
In short? Yes.

I would rather hear people shouting obscenities while I bury my child than see the government restrain free speech.
Click to expand...

I would put it another way, not meaning to have an argument with you, but,

are you not putting the right to be obscene above the right to respectfully bury the dead.
 
Last edited:
alexa said:
are you not putting the right to be obscene above the right to respectfully bury the dead.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article above that clarified that the people at the funeral DID NOT HEAR the protestors or see their signs from the funeral? We already have noise and protest ordinances in effect that attempt to minimize possible disturbances while allowing free expression.

That is do people at a funeral not have the right to bury their dead in peace.
Click to expand...

That question isn't relevant, because the funeral was not disrupted. It's also a false dichotomy. It is possible for people to protest AND for the funeral to be conducted in peace. In fact, that's exactly what happened in the case in question.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/70398-protesting-funerals-free-speech-7.html#post1058687108

However, if it was a choice between upholding free speech and protecting people from hearing it, I'll vote in favor of free speech every time. It is the speech that offends me that is in the most need of protection.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Depends. One could easily find tons of psychological evidence to show that having someone gloating about the death of a loved one at said loved one's funeral will almost definitely inflict a severe emotional injury upon a person, and the data would likely show that these emotional injuries would be almost universal.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more in terms of the nature of the 'speech' - the burning of the flag - as likely to incite violence/riot, rather than cause harm in and of itself.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Did you read the article above that clarified that the people at the funeral DID NOT HEAR the protestors or see their signs from the funeral? We already have noise and protest ordinances in effect that attempt to minimize possible disturbances while allowing free expression.



That question isn't relevant, because the funeral was not disrupted.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/70398-protesting-funerals-free-speech-7.html#post1058687108
Click to expand...

This is a relevant fact to this particular case. Doesn't Phelps, in other instances, truly disrupt funerals, or is it always out of earshot?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
This is a relevant fact to this particular case. Doesn't Phelps, in other instances, truly disrupt funerals, or is it always out of earshot?
Click to expand...

That's a good question. If we have to allow funerals to be disrupted in order to allow free speech, I guess I'm okay with that.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'm not a fan of curtailing speech, but fighting words have merit. For instance, there are two ways to say "I'm gonna kick your ass", if I said it to a friend calmly after he pranked me, then we laugh, it's not fighting words; however if I say it to a stranger in a bar after he spills my drink and it's an obviously angry tone, it could be construed as assault if he feels endangered, as well if he took a pre-emptive strike it could fall under self-defense since he felt threatened.

I see no difference here. If the Westboro cult expressed their message on Main St. in the middle of town then I'd say it's absolutely protected(although I wouldn't mind seeing a Toyota with a stuck gas pedal jumpt the curb and run them over) but saying that in front of grieving relatives in their time of vulnerability at the funeral is such a test of Time/Place/Manner that I think it warrants further discussion than simply proclaiming it free speech.
Click to expand...

They are not saying, "let's fight/kill soldiers" they are just saying that they are glad that soldiers are dead. Big difference.
 
I suppose this would be an example of exercising one's freedom of speech. However, a furneral isn't the forum I'd choose to voice my grievences publically. I just don't think protesting during a funeral whether the protesters can be heard or not is the proper venue for one's voice to be heard. Let the dead whomever he or she may be, whatever he or she might have done right or wrong, be buried in peace.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
That's a good question. If we have to allow funerals to be disrupted in order to allow free speech, I guess I'm okay with that.
Click to expand...

And that's where I would draw the line. This case is a poor test case, since the father claimed seeing the protest on TV was what caused his mental anguish. That's definitely a shakier claim than if the picketers had actually disrupted the funeral more directly.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
And that's where I would draw the line. This case is a poor test case, since the father claimed seeing the protest on TV was what caused his mental anguish. That's definitely a shakier claim than if the picketers had actually disrupted the funeral more directly.
Click to expand...

I don't believe they've actually disrupted a funeral. I know they've protested funerals, but my impression is that they've generally followed local laws and ordinances while protesting. Which would diminish the potential for disruption of the actual proceedings.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's the only type of injury words could possibly inflict.
Click to expand...

Obviously, no need to be that way. I am clarifying since I did not read your extensive back and forth posts about it.

Emotional injury is not relevant. They could also have said, "I don't like you and someday you will burn in hell." That could cause emotional inury. It is not illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom