• 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!

Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Funera

Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Ikari said:
What is "abusive language" if not compression of the air interpreted by our brains? The fact of the matter is that they are not abusing anyone, they are in public and assembling and protesting and so long as that remains true, they MUST be allowed to continue doing so. This is a consequence of freedom, you either accept it or choose "not freedom".
Click to expand...

Language has meaning. And when we make meaning form it. And when we do, we respond. And no, those words, that abuse, hits my nose.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Boo Radley said:
Language has meaning. And when we make meaning form it. And when we do, we respond. And no, those words, that abuse, hits my nose.
Click to expand...

Words are wind.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Ikari said:
Words are wind.
Click to expand...

Even the Bible notes the importance of words.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Boo Radley said:
Even the Bible notes the importance of words.
Click to expand...

The Bible has no bearing on law, so that's a moot point.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Ikari said:
The Bible has no bearing on law, so that's a moot point.
Click to expand...

The point is, in all things (espeically law) words matter.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Boo Radley said:
The point is, in all things (espeically law) words matter.
Click to expand...

To an extent, but not very far. If the "words" cause actual damage then yes (such as slander or libel); but beyond that no.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

This is a rather long thread so someone may have already brought this up but the free speech zones ship has sailed. I find it atrocious but if Obama is going to limit speech about him it makes sense he would limit if for his armies as well.

HR 347 Trespass Bill
House Vote(399-3)
Senate Vote(Unanimous Consent)
Votes Per Govtrack

If you don't know what this is below is a pretty good summary. Before you go saying that damned Obama look at the votes in congress. Now that's what I call a bipartisan bill a damn shame this is what they both agree on.

 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Ikari said:
To an extent, but not very far. If the "words" cause actual damage then yes (such as slander or libel); but beyond that no.
Click to expand...

No, more than that. If words had no meaning, we need not speak them. Funerals are private and whatever makes in way in, on the wind as you say, is an intrusion. Most we can live with. But an aimed intrusion, meant to do harm, is abuse that hits my nose.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

John.NoseTip said:
This is a rather long thread so someone may have already brought this up but the free speech zones ship has sailed. I find it atrocious but if Obama is going to limit speech about him it makes sense he would limit if for his armies as well.

HR 347 Trespass Bill
House Vote(399-3)
Senate Vote(Unanimous Consent)
Votes Per Govtrack

If you don't know what this is below is a pretty good summary. Before you go saying that damned Obama look at the votes in congress. Now that's what I call a bipartisan bill a damn shame this is what they both agree on.

Click to expand...


Free Speech zones did not start with Obama, but as the ever so good Republocrat he certainly has been expanding on it.

And just because they are doing it, doesn't mean we should allow more.

Also, I really like that Young Turks program, in general I mean, not just this clip.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Boo Radley said:
No, more than that. If words had no meaning, we need not speak them. Funerals are private and whatever makes in way in, on the wind as you say, is an intrusion. Most we can live with. But an aimed intrusion, meant to do harm, is abuse that hits my nose.
Click to expand...

Funerals are private, but you cannot then say people in public cannot act certain ways because they are in public. It's like making a law that says "no honking horns!" because some may find it distracting.

Boo, you haven't defended your ideal of why this is a right, you haven't explained it from base, you haven't demonstrated proper use of government force for a group assembled in public. I fear that you've allowed your emotions to compromise you on this subject.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Ikari said:
Free Speech zones did not start with Obama, but as the ever so good Republocrat he certainly has been expanding on it.

And just because they are doing it, doesn't mean we should allow more.

Also, I really like that Young Turks program, in general I mean, not just this clip.
Click to expand...

Agreed but I don't see the tide turning anytime soon. Young Turks is a good show. In the end like many party loyalist he goes overboard demonizing the other side sometimes but they cover many issues that the corporate media doesn't especially items like civil liberties and wiki-leaks. He did several clips on NDAA where he absolutely nuked the bill and Obama for signing the bill.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Ikari said:
Funerals are private, but you cannot then say people in public cannot act certain ways because they are in public. It's like making a law that says "no honking horns!" because some may find it distracting.

Boo, you haven't defended your ideal of why this is a right, you haven't explained it from base, you haven't demonstrated proper use of government force for a group assembled in public. I fear that you've allowed your emotions to compromise you on this subject.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think I can say it. Being over the fence or on the sidewalk doesn't mean they are not in fact interfering, imposing themselves on my private moment. We're not talking about the government, not a politiican, not anyone who has a public face. But private citizens who are grieving. No, I do not believe they have any right to that.

And while it is an emotional issue (Emotions are nto bad btw), I think there is a fundametal right here, my right to grieve in peace. I think it takes priority over someone's right to be an asshole.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Boo Radley said:
Actually, I think I can say it. Being over the fence or on the sidewalk doesn't mean they are not in fact interfering, imposing themselves on my private moment.
Click to expand...

And that is public property. And they are free to yell all they want out there. Sound travels through air, sorry.

Boo Radley said:
We're not talking about the government, not a politiican, not anyone who has a public face. But private citizens who are grieving. No, I do not believe they have any right to that.
Click to expand...

But we ARE talking about government. Who is making the law? Who is enforcing the law? We are talking government force against the free exercise of rights. And there is no demonstratable damage, no infringement of right. They may assemble and protest in public

Boo Radley said:
And while it is an emotional issue (Emotions are nto bad btw), I think there is a fundametal right here, my right to grieve in peace. I think it takes priority over someone's right to be an asshole.
Click to expand...

Emotions are not bad, perfectly normal human response. However, they do tend to cloud rational thought. And when dealing with eliciting government force against the rights of the People, we must fall to rational thought. To grieve in peace is not necessarily a right as you have no expectation to that privacy in public.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Ikari said:
And that is public property. And they are free to yell all they want out there. Sound travels through air, sorry.



But we ARE talking about government. Who is making the law? Who is enforcing the law? We are talking government force against the free exercise of rights. And there is no demonstratable damage, no infringement of right. They may assemble and protest in public



Emotions are not bad, perfectly normal human response. However, they do tend to cloud rational thought. And when dealing with eliciting government force against the rights of the People, we must fall to rational thought. To grieve in peace is not necessarily a right as you have no expectation to that privacy in public.
Click to expand...

No, we're talking about an out cry form the public, those who have had to suffer. We're not talking about a politiican protecting himself (the government). And you can have emotion and be perfectly rational. No matter where you stand, when your words interfer with my grief, you're crossed the line (hitting my nose so to speak).
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

I am just going to say, our constitution says freedom of speech. Yeah, you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences. A example, I shout "NOMB" in a crowed airport, should I be arrested? Yes. I can argue that it is unconstitutional that if found convicted it would be destroying the first admendment. So, is it unconstitutional? No, when you say something, be ready to accept the consequences. I support this bill.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Darrell said:
I am just going to say, our constitution says freedom of speech. Yeah, you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences. A example, I shout "NOMB" in a crowed airport, should I be arrested? Yes. I can argue that it is unconstitutional that if found convicted it would be destroying the first admendment. So, is it unconstitutional? No, when you say something, be ready to accept the consequences. I support this bill.
Click to expand...


Everyone wants free speech when they want to say something...and then in turn wants everyone else to STFU that does say what they agree with...
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

lpast said:
Everyone wants free speech when they want to say something...and then in turn wants everyone else to STFU that does say what they agree with...
Click to expand...

That is true.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Boo Radley said:
No, we're talking about an out cry form the public, those who have had to suffer.
Click to expand...

And what are they saying? "Please government! Please come in here and save me from that guy practicing his rights over there!"

Boo Radley said:
We're not talking about a politiican protecting himself (the government). And you can have emotion and be perfectly rational. No matter where you stand, when your words interfer with my grief, you're crossed the line (hitting my nose so to speak).
Click to expand...

Your nose is not getting hit, you're just getting worked up over words and freedom. I can understand WHY you would push for a bill like this, I think it's very understandable. But this is government force we're talking about, force used against the free exercise of rights and in that light, we have to be careful with what we're using it for. Not only that, it can only justly be elicited if we demonstrate that through their actions they had been infringing upon the rights of others. That's where restrictions such as yelling fire in a crowded theater come from. In this case, there are no rights being infringed upon. You made one up and claim it to be violated, but the right to grieve in peace isn't a right as "peace" is very much dependent upon location. In public, where the WBC folk are at, you do not have the right to grieve in peace, you do not have reasonable expectation to that privacy.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Darrell said:
I am just going to say, our constitution says freedom of speech. Yeah, you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences. A example, I shout "NOMB" in a crowed airport, should I be arrested? Yes. I can argue that it is unconstitutional that if found convicted it would be destroying the first admendment. So, is it unconstitutional? No, when you say something, be ready to accept the consequences. I support this bill.
Click to expand...

Well if you shout bomb in a crowded airport you can cause a panic which can threaten the well being of those there. Furthermore, given that we're on "alert" for terrorism, it will surely call response from the agents there. But there is a difference yelling fire or bomb in crowded places (which cause panic and lead to people becoming injured) without a threat and a group of people peacefully assembled on public land protesting. I'd hope that the difference was obvious.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Ikari said:
Well if you shout bomb in a crowded airport you can cause a panic which can threaten the well being of those there. Furthermore, given that we're on "alert" for terrorism, it will surely call response from the agents there. But there is a difference yelling fire or bomb in crowded places (which cause panic and lead to people becoming injured) without a threat and a group of people peacefully assembled on public land protesting. I'd hope that the difference was obvious.
Click to expand...
When I was talking about shouting "Bomb" in an airport, I was making a refrence to this thread, I guess it wasn't that obvious next time I will know. I was comparing the two, if I shout "Bomb," in a crowed airport, people with get hurt. If I have a anti-gay protest at an openly-gay marine's funeral or anything, people wil get hurt. I don't know about you, but people get real emotional about these things. Should I get arrested for shouting, "Bomb?" Yes. Should I get arrested for protesting a soldiers funeral? Yes. Still freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Darrell said:
If I have a anti-gay protest at an openly-gay marine's funeral or anything, people wil get hurt. I don't know about you, but people get real emotional about these things. Should I get arrested for shouting, "Bomb?" Yes. Should I get arrested for protesting a soldiers funeral? Yes. Still freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

The difference is reasonable response. If you're in a crowded place and people start shouting fire such that you think there is a real fire, it is reasonable and expected that one may panic as fire would be a threat to life and limb. If someone is running their mouth, you assaulting them is NOT reasonable response. You have more than ample opportunity to not assault them and they themselves would not be putting your life at risk or assaulting you. See the difference? This too is actually well obvious; while it may be reasonable to panic if your life is in danger, it is not reasonable to assault another human because they are running their mouths.

As such, you should not be arrested for protesting a soldier's funeral. BTW, another obvious thing you missed, it isn't "still freedom of speech". When you are using government force to prevent the free exercise of a right, it is no longer free. Ergo if you use the government to prevent someone from exercising freedom of speech, it is no longer freedom of speech.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Ikari said:
And what are they saying? "Please government! Please come in here and save me from that guy practicing his rights over there!"



Your nose is not getting hit, you're just getting worked up over words and freedom. I can understand WHY you would push for a bill like this, I think it's very understandable. But this is government force we're talking about, force used against the free exercise of rights and in that light, we have to be careful with what we're using it for. Not only that, it can only justly be elicited if we demonstrate that through their actions they had been infringing upon the rights of others. That's where restrictions such as yelling fire in a crowded theater come from. In this case, there are no rights being infringed upon. You made one up and claim it to be violated, but the right to grieve in peace isn't a right as "peace" is very much dependent upon location. In public, where the WBC folk are at, you do not have the right to grieve in peace, you do not have reasonable expectation to that privacy.
Click to expand...

I suppose I or someone else could shoot them, but I don't think that's the preferred answer. Government having laws that protect my privacy to grieve is OK with me.

No, words have power. And a funeral is not the place for protests. Not for a private citizen. It is my right to grieve in peace. I'm sorry you don't see it.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

lpast said:
Ok, now this is one issue that "EVERYONE" should say Thank You Mr President....


President Barack Obama signed the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 into law on Monday, providing a wide-ranging package of benefits to military personnel and enacting new restrictions on protests of service member funerals.

"We have a moral sacred duty to our men and women in uniform," Obama said before signing the bill, according to a pool report. "The graves of our veterans are hallowed grounds."


Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Funeral Protests
Click to expand...

US vets no longer fight for freedom and country. They fight for the government instead.
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

solletica said:
US vets no longer fight for freedom and country. They fight for the government instead.
Click to expand...

Everyone has their own opinons....many believe they only fight so rich americans can get richer...who knows...all I do know is that the troops are fighting for their country...who and why they are sent is not their issue....they go and do their job and lay their lives on the line...for all us..
 
Re: Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Fu

Boo Radley said:
I suppose I or someone else could shoot them, but I don't think that's the preferred answer.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Not only is it not reasonable response, but your life is not threatened by WBC so you have no legal recourse to do so. As such, anyone who tries to shoot them goes to jail.

It's not that I don't see your "right to grieve in peace", it's that you haven't even supported it through argument. You merely stated it, and then claim that your new invention should trump already established rights, such as protest.

Freedom has many consequences and responsibilities. I'm sorry you don't see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom