• 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
Flea said:
They are not saying, "let's fight/kill soldiers" they are just saying that they are glad that soldiers are dead. Big difference.
Click to expand...
Time/Place/Manner. They have every right to do this, but if they are infringing on the right to hold a respectful funeral(freedom of religion) then they are in the wrong.

Time: 12P EST anyday of the week; Place: Main st. business district; Manner: Waving signs shouting obscenities......no problem. vs. Time: During a private funeral; Place: Within earshot/plain view of the rite; Manner: Shouting obscenities/offensive written expressions then the family they directly inflicted harrassment upon should have legal recourse, this falls under harrassment, fighting words, and potentially incitement to riot, as well as disturbing the piece.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have seen them certainly protesting outside so that the mourners have to run the gauntlet of them and it is some time since I saw the film of them, but I am not at all sure I did not even see them in a funeral - but certainly with the mourners having to run the gauntlet of them glad their child is dead and cursing him and spewing bile.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...

The question I have is whether or not limiting the location and time for certain types of injury-inducing speech is the same thing as prohibiting free speech.

The people are still very free to promote their views, publicly in fact, they would just need to do so in ways that are not purposefully chosen to inflict as much damage as possible.

If the Westboro ****heads weren't protesting outside of funerals and coal mining accidents, they'd be completely irrelevant. They do it for attention, and nothing more. They purposefully do it at these times because they know that their willful acts to emotionally harm others will make it on the news.

The most important thing is that they aren't prevented from sharing their despicable views when they are prevented from inflicting these purposeful wounds upon the bereaved. They are still free to share them. What they want, more than anything, is free advertising for their views via the news networks.

They know they won't get it if they act like semi-decent human beings.
 
Flea said:
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.
Click to expand...

I personally don't see why people care if others think they are going to Hell. Why is that so annoying to people?
 
Tucker Case said:
The question I have is whether or not limiting the location and time for certain types of injury-inducing speech is the same thing as prohibiting free speech.

The people are still very free to promote their views, publicly in fact, they would just need to do so in ways that are not purposefully chosen to inflict as much damage as possible.

If the Westboro ****heads weren't protesting outside of funerals and coal mining accidents, they'd be completely irrelevant. They do it for attention, and nothing more. They purposefully do it at these times because they know that their willful acts to emotionally harm others will make it on the news.

The most important thing is that they aren't prevented from sharing their despicable views when they are prevented from inflicting these purposeful wounds upon the bereaved. They are still free to share them. What they want, more than anything, is free advertising for their views via the news networks.

They know they won't get it if they act like semi-decent human beings.
Click to expand...

Very well put, thanks.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I personally don't see why people care if others think they are going to Hell. Why is that so annoying to people?
Click to expand...
A funeral is different IMO. For instance, I was always raised not to speak ill of the dead because they are no longer here to defend themselves, as well, someone loved them and would rather their memory be respected.
 
Tucker Case said:
The question I have is whether or not limiting the location and time for certain types of injury-inducing speech is the same thing as prohibiting free speech.
Click to expand...
Well, no, because 'free speech' doesn't include speech that causes harm.
As such, prohibitions against same do not limit free speech.
 
Flea said:
Obviously, no need to be that way. I am clarifying since I did not read your extensive back and forth posts about it.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the post I quoted and responded to? It wasn't all that extensive of a back and forth. Unless you consider two total posts as "extensive".

And in reality, you only had to read the words found in one post since it was quoted in that post. That was the extent of the back and forth on the fighting words discussion.

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.
Click to expand...

Read up on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and the "fighting words" doctrine. I was actually quoting the decision. Without that knowledge, you aren't equipped with the necessary tools to tell me what is or is not relevant.
 
I don't get it. When there is a RNC or major GOP event going on, you have hundreds of arrests from liberals breaking laws and reveling in general douchebaggery.

Then here you have Westboro, where I would turn a blind eye if some left-wing crazies wanted to fight, burn things, and flip out - and they're nowhere to be found.

All we need is a couple fringers to pull an al-Qaeda on these fundamentalist nutjobs and all would be right in the world. Hell, you'll even get fan mail in the slammer or an honorable funeral. The sane part of America would thank you.
 
alexa said:
I have seen them certainly protesting outside so that the mourners have to run the gauntlet of them and it is some time since I saw the film of them, but I am not at all sure I did not even see them in a funeral - but certainly with the mourners having to run the gauntlet of them glad their child is dead and cursing him and spewing bile.
Click to expand...

Okay, and your point is?
 
Tucker Case said:
The question I have is whether or not limiting the location and time for certain types of injury-inducing speech is the same thing as prohibiting free speech.

The people are still very free to promote their views, publicly in fact, they would just need to do so in ways that are not purposefully chosen to inflict as much damage as possible.

If the Westboro ****heads weren't protesting outside of funerals and coal mining accidents, they'd be completely irrelevant. They do it for attention, and nothing more. They purposefully do it at these times because they know that their willful acts to emotionally harm others will make it on the news.

The most important thing is that they aren't prevented from sharing their despicable views when they are prevented from inflicting these purposeful wounds upon the bereaved. They are still free to share them. What they want, more than anything, is free advertising for their views via the news networks.

They know they won't get it if they act like semi-decent human beings.
Click to expand...

I was gonna add to my post that protesting in this manner "certainly is an attention getter," but didn't think it appropriate...mainly because I don't think protesting at funerals is appropriate. Of course, people/organizations have a Constitutional right to do so as long as the adhere to local ordinance laws. Still, I think it's morally wrong to do so.

Protest before or after the funeral services if you must, but let the grieving family bury their dead in peace. (And yes, Catz, I read the article...still think it's wrong either way, but the protesters do have that right.)
 
Objective Voice said:
Protest before or after the funeral services if you must, but let the grieving family bury their dead in peace. (And yes, Catz, I read the article...still think it's wrong either way.)
Click to expand...

Is it morally wrong? Probably.

Is it illegal? Probably not.

There are a lot of things that people do that I find reprehensible that are still perfectly legal.
 
Goobieman said:
Well, no, because 'free speech' doesn't include speech that causes harm.
As such, prohibitions against same do not limit free speech.
Click to expand...

Then the discussion here would really come down to whether or not these protests do cause harm to the bereaved and whether or not it can be shown that they do.

Or, probably more specifically, if "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" or "Your sons are in Hell" can be construed as a "personally abusive epithet", especially at a funeral.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Is it morally wrong? Probably.

Is it illegal? Probably not.

There are a lot of things that people do that I find reprehensible that are still perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's when people need to remind themselves that, "Just because I can do something doesn't necessarily mean that I should."

Still, I hear ya'...
 
Objective Voice said:
Yeah, but that's when people need to remind themselves that, "Just because I can do something doesn't necessarily mean that I should."

Still, I hear ya'...
Click to expand...

Okay? That's not the issue. The issue is whether we want government involved. And, my answer is "Hell no." Local government already has more than enough ability to control noise and disruption.
 
Objective Voice said:
I was gonna add to my post that protesting in this manner "certainly is an attention getter," but didn't think it appropriate...mainly because I don't think protesting at funerals is appropriate. Of course, people/organizations have a Constitutional right to do so as long as the adhere to local ordinance laws. Still, I think it's morally wrong to do so.

Protest before or after the funeral services if you must, but let the grieving family bury their dead in peace. (And yes, Catz, I read the article...still think it's wrong either way, but the protesters do have that right.)
Click to expand...

I agree that protesting at a funeral is absolutely despicable, regardless of what is said, but I think this issue also delves entirely into what is actually on the protest signs and what is being said at/outside the funerals.

If it the purposefully malicious aspects of the signs were removed, i.e. your sons are in hell, Thank God for Dead soldiers, then the issue would merely be protesting at the funeral, and I say that, despicable as it is to do so, it should be protected.

But in this case, the words chosen are designed with malicious intent in order to inflict emotional wounds upon the bereaved, IMO. As such, that particular speech at that particular time doesn't automatically warrant protection and requires a more in-depth analysis.
 
Tucker Case said:
Then the discussion here would really come down to whether or not these protests do cause harm to the bereaved and whether or not it can be shown that they do.
Click to expand...
I thought from your statement that this was assumed.
 
Tucker Case said:
Then the discussion here would really come down to whether or not these protests do cause harm to the bereaved and whether or not it can be shown that they do.

Or, probably more specifically, if "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" or "Your sons are in Hell" can be construed as a "personally abusive epithet", especially at a funeral.
Click to expand...

I think it most certainly can, and from the article, it has!

The grieving father can't sleep and his health has been affected by the actions of the protesters. So, yes, I think they have done harm.

From the article:

Snyder's lawsuit accuses the Topeka, Kan., church of invading his privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress.

"It's still very emotional," Snyder said in an interview at his attorney's office. "It's like I constantly relive this every day, and I just wonder sometimes, when this is all over, what I'm going to do with that void. Will the grieving process begin?"

The fight has taken its toll on Snyder's health. The broad-chested 54-year-old has struggled with clinical depression and diabetes.
Click to expand...

Now, one could argue that it has been the stress from preparing and fighting this issue in court that has cause Mr. Snyder the most durress, but where did this all start? Would he have already gone through the grieving process had it not been for the protesters? An interesting question because everyone grieves differently and for some the process takes longer than for others. Still, who's to say whether or not Mr. Snyder wouldn't be well over grieving for his deceased son had the protesters backed off?

Of course, I also see the other side here. If you say to protesters you can't speak your voice here or there, then when and where can they do it? What other restricts will be placed on "freedom of speech?"

It's an interesting case indeed.
 
Objective Voice said:
IThe grieving father can't sleep and his health has been affected by the actions of the protesters.
Click to expand...

His son died. It's questionable whether he is suffering more because of the protestors, or if these conditions were the inevitable effect of losing his son. I'd vote for the latter.
 
Objective Voice said:
Of course, I also see the other side here. If you say to protesters you can't speak your voice here or there, then when and where can they do it? What other restricts will be placed on "freedom of speech?"
Click to expand...

They don't have to be seen by the funeral attendees (and in this case, weren't) in order to exercise their free speech. So, it's up to the local jurisdictions to, in most cases, enforce existing ordinances.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Okay? That's not the issue. The issue is whether we want government involved. And, my answer is "Hell no." Local government already has more than enough ability to control noise and disruption.
Click to expand...

I'd have to say you don't get government involvement when people treat others with decency and respect. To me, protesting at funerals is nothing more than grandstanding of the worst kind. It's on par with defacing a grave sight. You just don't do it even if you have every right to do it. (Except defacing a grave sight is illegal in pretty much every state. So, it's a bad example, but I think you get my point. "Just because you can do it, doesn't mean that you should.")

The protesters could have chosen another time or place to voice their grievences. They simply choose to air their complaints at a place and time that provided the most shock value. Again, they have every right to do so under the law. I just think they're wrong for doing it this way.
 
Objective Voice said:
The protesters could have chosen another time or place to voice their grievences. They simply choose to air their complaints at a place and time that provided the most shock value. Again, they have every right to do so under the law. I just think they're wrong for doing it this way.
Click to expand...

And that and 99 cents will get you an iced mocha at McDonald's.

The fact that you think it's wrong is precisely why they do it.
 
No need to be so coy about it, dear. I'm just saying I wouldn't pick such a venue to voice my grievences. The protesters who have chosen to do so have every right to. I just think they could have gotten their point across another way.
 
Objective Voice said:
No need to be so coy about it, dear. I'm just saying I wouldn't pick such a venue to voice my grievences. The protesters who have chosen to do so have every right to. I just think they could have gotten their point across another way.
Click to expand...

You see my tone as "coy"? Interesting. Nice swing, but a complete miss.

Of course they could have staged their protest elsewhere, but no one would have paid attention. They do it like this because it's like a ****ing car accident. You can't help but look and be horrified. THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT.

THEY ARE ASSHOLES. That doesn't mean that they don't have a right to free speech.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom