Arizona legislature passes bill limiting funeral protests

jamesrage said:

This is a blatant violation of the constitution and they know it but yet they enacted it anyways because they know it will be some time before a judge will overturn it. How is this any better than libs ****tig on the constitution in DC,Chicago or some other place to ban or severely restrict firearms because they know it will be some time before it gets overturned. Not only is this a blatant violation of the constitution but a blatant misuse of the courts.

Click to expand...

There are limits to how much the Constitution will protect a persons right to free speech and to assemble peaceably to protest. This is one of the few things that should be protected against such reprehensible behavior. This 9 year old girl had done nothing in her very short life to warrant the Phelps clans intrusion into her funeral. The ONLY reason that they are doing so is to push an agenda on others. Its not even about the girl. It's about the "fame" it will bring them. As far as I am concerned those people are no better than any extremist muslim that shouts "DEATH TO AMERICA" as he flips the switch to blow himself up. Wait no...there is a difference. At least with the muslim terrorist we will no longer have to hear his crap again.

You can call me out on how wrong I am and you can even call me anti-american all you want. It won't bother me in the slightest. Because in this one case... I. Don't. Care.

I'm really torn on this.

On the one hand, I find the Phelps clan and their hate repugnant, and I'm ecstatic that they won't be able to bother the grieving family of a murdered 9-year old at her funeral.

On the other hand, it is a restriction on free speech, which is generally a bad thing.

However, some restrictions on free speech are necessary, and in this case it's a beneficial restriction, and I don't really see it as all that different from requiring permits to have a rally or something like that.

On the other hand it could lead to more restrictions in the future (though it hopefully won't).

I'm honestly unsure how I feel on this.

It is against the law in most places to publically incite to riot or incite violence.

Personally I think the Phelp's actions incite violence... IIRC they have been attacked or threatened more than once.

jamesrage said:

Yeah its ****ed up that assholes want to protest at this little girl's funeral but the government state or federal should not be passing unconstitutional laws.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree, couldn't have put it better myself, mate.

By "to hell with the constitution" I take it he meant "lets change the constitution", not "lets make a law in violation of the constitution anyway". Could be wrong, meh, doesn't really matter.

I'm very against any measures to limit the speech of Phelps and his church. I agree with him more than anyone, heck, I'm an Atheist, but that doesn't mean he can't speak.

Free speech is not free unless offensive speech is protected

Kal'Stang said:

There are limits to how much the Constitution will protect a persons right to free speech and to assemble peaceably to protest. This is one of the few things that should be protected against such reprehensible behavior. This 9 year old girl had done nothing in her very short life to warrant the Phelps clans intrusion into her funeral. The ONLY reason that they are doing so is to push an agenda on others. Its not even about the girl. It's about the "fame" it will bring them. As far as I am concerned those people are no better than any extremist muslim that shouts "DEATH TO AMERICA" as he flips the switch to blow himself up. Wait no...there is a difference. At least with the muslim terrorist we will no longer have to hear his crap again.

You can call me out on how wrong I am and you can even call me anti-american all you want. It won't bother me in the slightest. Because in this one case... I. Don't. Care.

Click to expand...

Careful now, they are going to call you a lib.

mike2810 said:

-- It just basically saying you can't get in my face to spout off --

Click to expand...

I don't think it is just this - though at first glance, a 300 meter separation seems to answer that. It is an infringement which can be used another time in another space as a precedent and limitation will have been set.

There were other ways to solve this problem - including public campaigns to block the funeral viewer's view of the Phelps clan or allowing counter protest. The action has been taken with the right spirit (making sure a funeral is held in peace) but is the wrong tool to acheive this.

SirPwn4lot said:

Absolutely agree, couldn't have put it better myself, mate.

By "to hell with the constitution" I take it he meant "lets change the constitution", not "lets make a law in violation of the constitution anyway". Could be wrong, meh, doesn't really matter.

I'm very against any measures to limit the speech of Phelps and his church. I agree with him more than anyone, heck, I'm an Atheist, but that doesn't mean he can't speak.

Free speech is not free unless offensive speech is protected

Click to expand...

How is it limiting Phelps speech by moving them back aways? They can still spout off. No one is saying they can't say what they want to say.

Kal'Stang said:

There are limits to how much the Constitution will protect a persons right to free speech and to assemble peaceably to protest. This is one of the few things that should be protected against such reprehensible behavior.

Click to expand...

Then petition your elected officials to make a constitutional amendments to ban protests at funerals. It may take years or decades but the last thing you do not do is knowingly subvert the constitution because of the fact you know it make take someone months or years to get that unconstitutional law removed. This is no better than what the anti-2nd amendment loons in liberal states do.

This 9 year old girl had done nothing in her very short life to warrant the Phelps clans intrusion into her funeral. The ONLY reason that they are doing so is to push an agenda on others. Its not even about the girl. It's about the "fame" it will bring them. As far as I am concerned those people are no better than any extremist muslim that shouts "DEATH TO AMERICA" as he flips the switch to blow himself up. Wait no...there is a difference. At least with the muslim terrorist we will no longer have to hear his crap again.

You can call me out on how wrong I am and you can even call me anti-american all you want. It won't bother me in the slightest. Because in this one case... I. Don't. Care.

Click to expand...

The only reason Phelps is doing this is to sue the first chance he gets

Fred Phelps is a Con Man
Fred Phelps: Fag Hater or just a Con Artist? | Orange Juice
Its a Thought... // Westoboro Baptist Church - Are they con artists?
Fred Phelps awarded $16,510 in legal fees from dead soldier's father (updated) - Kansas City News - Plog



Fred Phelps Timeline | Southern Poverty Law Center
1974
Phelps files a $50-million class action suit against Sears after a local outlet is several days late delivering a television set. Litigation continues for six years and is eventually settled with Sears paying Phelps $126 — about $60 less than Phelps' son originally paid for the TV, which he never receives.


snip...


1983
Phelps files the first of three federal lawsuits against Washburn University Law School after three of his children are denied admission. The suit contends his children should be granted minority status, and thus benefit from affirmative action, because of their association with their father's "civil rights" legal work.

A later suit switches the argument, alleging reverse discrimination because Phelps' children are white. All are dismissed in 1986.


1984
Phelps sues President Ronald Reagan for sending an ambassador to the Vatican, alleging violations of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.


1985
Nine federal judges in Kansas sign a disciplinary complaint against Phelps, five of his children and a daughter-in-law, alleging the seven made false accusations against the judges.

In a separate complaint, Phelps, still practicing in federal court, will be censured in 1987 for writing abusive letters this year to potential defendants threatening lawsuits if his demands were not met.


snip...


1993
Shawnee County District Attorney Joan Hamilton begins to bring battery, assault and other charges — including eight counts of criminal defamation — against WBC members for a litany of alleged picket line abuses.

After Phelps responds by filing the first of three suits against Hamilton alleging wrongful prosecution, a court invalidates the state defamation statute, enjoins further prosecution of WBC members in the cases, and awards $43,000 in legal fees to the church.

snip...

1997
Claiming the city has not done enough to protect WBC picketers, Phelps threatens to sue Topeka if he is not paid $1 million. When the city demurs, Phelps sues for $7 million.





1978
In one of several civil rights cases filed by Phelps, an area school district pays almost $9,000 to Evelyn Rene Johnson (and over $10,000 in legal fees to Phelps) to settle a discrimination case.

Another Phelps case results in a settlement for blacks who were illegally searched by police at a party.

In 1986 and 1987, Phelps will receive three awards for his civil rights cases, including one bestowed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

SirPwn4lot said:

By "to hell with the constitution" I take it he meant "lets change the constitution", not "lets make a law in violation of the constitution anyway". Could be wrong, meh, doesn't really matter.

Click to expand...

He is part of the crowd that spews the lie that the "constitution is a living breathing document" in order to blatantly misinterpret it so they can add,remove or severely restrict rights. They do not believe in going through the amendment process to change the constitution.

I really don't think keeping protestors 300 ft. away from a funeral is going to open the door to anything. It's a pretty specific circumstance, with good justifications, and strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of the protesters, who can choose many other avenues to voice their opinions, and the grieving family, which cannot.

These fools come to my funeral and I’ll fly up their noses and spin around in their tinny brains for a couple of years.

Hasn't Holder rushed to court to get the law blocked yet?

.

??? said:

I really don't think keeping protestors 300 ft. away from a funeral is going to open the door to anything. It's a pretty specific circumstance, with good justifications, and strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of the protesters, who can choose many other avenues to voice their opinions, and the grieving family, which cannot.

Click to expand...

So you support free speech zones?

jamesrage said:

So you support free speech zones?

Click to expand...

Do think it is an inevitable move from this type of law to free speech zones? I'm curious how.

jamesrage said:

Yeah its ****ed up that assholes want to protest at this little girl's funeral but the government state or federal should not be passing unconstitutional laws.

Click to expand...

i agree.....there has to be some other way to stop them.

??? said:

Do think it is an inevitable move from this type of law to free speech zones? I'm curious how.

Click to expand...

Other than the fact there is no cages where Phelps is basically allowed to protest at how is this any different?

jamesrage said:

Other than the fact there is no cages where Phelps is basically allowed to protest at how is this any different?

Click to expand...

A free speech zone designates a (presumably small) area in which protests can occur. This law designates a very small area where protests can NOT occur. Do you think people should be able to march into the Oval Office to protest whenever they wish?

Free speech is not absolute. I can yell "fire" in an empty field. I can't do that in a crowded theater. I can't incite riots. I applaud the restraint shown by the families who have had their loved one's funerals protested. If they keep up like they do, some crazed person may turn a gun on the Phelps clan. We will all say that it's wrong, but we will all understand. Westboro is pushing the limits of "fighting words" IMO.

I don't think the goverment should have got involved in this. Phelps and his clan are constitutionally allowed to protest and, even though I despise what they're all about, they have the freedom to be assholes. The solution to this, seeing as they always announce where they're going to protest, is for the local population to get together and try to find a way to keep them as far away from the funeral as possible. Kind of like the Patriot Guard Riders and Hells Angels often do.

I've got to ask JR. The SC has ruled it is ok to have buffer zones at abortion clinics.
"The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the restrictions against demonstrating within 36 feet of the clinic (to the extent that the 36-foot buffer did not include private property), making loud noises within earshot of the clinic, and making loud noises within 300 feet of an employee's residence. The Court rejected the prohibitions against displaying images, approaching patients within 300 feet of the clinic, and peacefully picketing within 300 feet of an employee's residence. In reaching its decision, the Court announced a new test for cases in which speech is prohibited by an injunction: The injunction will be upheld unless it burdens more speech than is necessary to serve a significant government interest.firstamendmentcenter.org: Welcome to the First Amendment Center Online.

How is having a buffer zone around funerals any different? IMO, the AZ law is going to pass the review, if any.

I think it's a bit ****ed up. I don't even see why we have to run to government for this problem, there were plans which would have handled it just as well without government interference. I'd rather not see a law of this nature come to the light of day. Right to protest should be upheld to the maximum possible. It's already restricted too much what with "free speech zones" and stuff like that. I think it's about time we learn to handle our own business without turning to government to solve the problem for us. More laws will just mean more abused laws.

liblady said:

i agree.....there has to be some other way to stop them.

Click to expand...

Fred Phelps is a greedy ambulance chasing lawyer. Phelps is one of the poster boys for why we need tort reform. Judging by this they run around pissing people off and then when these pissed off people violate their rights they sue and collect lawyer fees and other ****. Perhaps all those people who say tax the living hell out of the rich, limit CEO pays and bonuses. Perhaps they need to look at lawyers as well.

Fred Phelps is a Con Man
Fred Phelps: Fag Hater or just a Con Artist? | Orange Juice
Its a Thought... // Westoboro Baptist Church - Are they con artists?
Fred Phelps awarded $16,510 in legal fees from dead soldier's father (updated) - Kansas City News - Plog



Fred Phelps Timeline | Southern Poverty Law Center
1974
Phelps files a $50-million class action suit against Sears after a local outlet is several days late delivering a television set. Litigation continues for six years and is eventually settled with Sears paying Phelps $126 — about $60 less than Phelps' son originally paid for the TV, which he never receives.


snip...


1983
Phelps files the first of three federal lawsuits against Washburn University Law School after three of his children are denied admission. The suit contends his children should be granted minority status, and thus benefit from affirmative action, because of their association with their father's "civil rights" legal work.

A later suit switches the argument, alleging reverse discrimination because Phelps' children are white. All are dismissed in 1986.


1984
Phelps sues President Ronald Reagan for sending an ambassador to the Vatican, alleging violations of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.


1985
Nine federal judges in Kansas sign a disciplinary complaint against Phelps, five of his children and a daughter-in-law, alleging the seven made false accusations against the judges.

In a separate complaint, Phelps, still practicing in federal court, will be censured in 1987 for writing abusive letters this year to potential defendants threatening lawsuits if his demands were not met.


snip...


1993
Shawnee County District Attorney Joan Hamilton begins to bring battery, assault and other charges — including eight counts of criminal defamation — against WBC members for a litany of alleged picket line abuses.

After Phelps responds by filing the first of three suits against Hamilton alleging wrongful prosecution, a court invalidates the state defamation statute, enjoins further prosecution of WBC members in the cases, and awards $43,000 in legal fees to the church.

snip...

1997
Claiming the city has not done enough to protect WBC picketers, Phelps threatens to sue Topeka if he is not paid $1 million. When the city demurs, Phelps sues for $7 million.





1978
In one of several civil rights cases filed by Phelps, an area school district pays almost $9,000 to Evelyn Rene Johnson (and over $10,000 in legal fees to Phelps) to settle a discrimination case.

Another Phelps case results in a settlement for blacks who were illegally searched by police at a party.

In 1986 and 1987, Phelps will receive three awards for his civil rights cases, including one bestowed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Click to expand...

jamesrage said:

This is a blatant violation of the constitution and they know it but yet they enacted it anyways because they know it will be some time before a judge will overturn it. How is this any better than libs ****tig on the constitution in DC,Chicago or some other place to ban or severely restrict firearms because they know it will be some time before it gets overturned. Not only is this a blatant violation of the constitution but a blatant misuse of the courts.



This bill says when and how far they can protest based on the hate Speech of Phelps. This is simply nothing more than a baby step towards banning other speech deemed hateful.




Because you open the door for other "limits".

Click to expand...

As much as I hate Westboro, I have to agree with jamesrage on principle. I'd like to see them get arrested for breaking some existing law.

mike2810 said:

I've got to ask JR. The SC has ruled it is ok to have buffer zones at abortion clinics.
"The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the restrictions against demonstrating within 36 feet of the clinic (to the extent that the 36-foot buffer did not include private property), making loud noises within earshot of the clinic, and making loud noises within 300 feet of an employee's residence. The Court rejected the prohibitions against displaying images, approaching patients within 300 feet of the clinic, and peacefully picketing within 300 feet of an employee's residence. In reaching its decision, the Court announced a new test for cases in which speech is prohibited by an injunction: The injunction will be upheld unless it burdens more speech than is necessary to serve a significant government interest.firstamendmentcenter.org: Welcome to the First Amendment Center Online.

How is having a buffer zone around funerals any different? IMO, the AZ law is going to pass the review, if any.

Click to expand...

As long as the protesters are not trespassing on private property,blocking entrances to parking lots or building entrance then there should be no buffer zone.

independent_thinker2002 said:

I can't do that in a crowded theater. I can't incite riots.

Click to expand...

That's not because we can carte blanche limit the free exercise of rights, it's that in one's exercise of rights they may not infringe upon the rights of others. Shouting fire in a crowded theater creates a panic which directly leads to people getting hurt, as does inciting a riot (though in all honesty, I find the last one a bit questionable, since there could be times when it is necessary to incite to riot). Since these actions directly and innately infringe on the rights of others, they are limited. Standing on the street corner yelling "god hates fags" does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.