• 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
Tucker Case said:
These people are exactly the reason why I would fully support re-legalizing dueling.
Click to expand...

Only if you can do it while having "Glove Slap" playing in the background and then are able to go forth and start a tomacco farm.
 
Goobieman said:
I thought from your statement that this was assumed.
Click to expand...

I am assuming that this could be shown, but it's more based on my research into grief counseling for my Master's program than actually looking up specific data.

I haven't actually done any research into the specific situation so I can't say for certain how well it would be presented in court.

My guess is that any psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor will concur that such actions would almost definitely inflict some degree of emotional damage upon the bereaved (who are already in a weakened emotional state as it is). I would guess it will be almost impossible to find one that would say that it wouldn't inflict an emotional wound of some sort upon them.

The statements by the guy suing the church as well as other bereaved family members who've been targeted by Phelps' despicable behavior also concurs with that.

But without actually doing the targeted research, I can only speak from the perspective of a grad student in psychological counseling, and that I know such a wound would almost universally be inflicted. I am also assuming that it would be very easy to gather the data necessary to confirm these assumptions of mine.

But for the sake of honesty, I must admit that I haven't actually done targeted research on the matter, just generalized research about the emotional states associated with grief. That research leads me to these conclusions.

P.S. Earlier when I said "One could easily find tons of psychological evidence to show" I should have said "It should be easy". My mistake and appologies.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
My guess is that any psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor will concur that such actions would almost definitely inflict some degree of emotional damage upon the bereaved (who are already in a weakened emotional state as it is). I would guess it will be almost impossible to find one that would say that it wouldn't inflict an emotional wound of some sort upon them.
Click to expand...

How would you measure it, though, given that grief itself inflicts such a tremendous physical toll on people?
 
Tucker Case said:
My guess is that any psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor will concur that such actions would almost definitely inflict some degree of emotional damage upon the bereaved (who are already in a weakened emotional state as it is). I would guess it will be almost impossible to find one that would say that it wouldn't inflict an emotional wound of some sort upon them.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Seems to me, with this, that just about any sort of offensive language may fall under 'causes harm'.
 
Goobieman said:
Hmm. Seems to me, with this, that just about any sort of offensive language may fall under 'causes harm'.
Click to expand...

Our country is doomed. Offensive language is part of what made this country great.

doomed.jpg
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
How would you measure it, though, given that grief itself inflicts such a tremendous physical toll on people?
Click to expand...

Specifically, such protests interfere with the "closure" aspect of a funeral which is a necessary step in the grief process. By having this step "desecrated" as such, including derogatory statements about the deceased, the resulting emotional woulds would very likely involved a prolonging of the grief process because it can act as an interruption to the process.

Also, the reason everyone almost universally finds these actions despicable is the innate understanding that these behaviors are hurtful to those who are bereaved.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Our country is doomed. Offensive language is part of what made this country great.

doomed.jpg
Click to expand...
Yep, I've always said the national bird should've been the middle finger, even though the eagle is beautiful flipping the bird just feels more right.
 
Tucker Case said:
Specifically, such protests interfere with the "closure" aspect of a funeral which is a necessary step in the grief process. By having this step "desecrated" as such, including derogatory statements about the deceased, the resulting emotional woulds would very likely involved a prolonging of the grief process because it can act as an interruption to the process.

Also, the reason everyone almost universally finds these actions despicable is the innate understanding that these behaviors are hurtful to those who are bereaved.
Click to expand...

But do they cause lasting harm that is measurable? And if not, how would a jury award damages?
 
Is it free speech? Do you mean, is it protected by the First Amendment? If so, than the answer is no. There are some things that are not protected by the first amendment, these have been decided by our Supreme Court.

1. Obscenity
2. Profanity
3. Libel and Slander
4. Fighting Words
5. Clear and Present Danger

Protesting at a funeral but in particular the words and signs used could easily fall under category three and four.

Libel and Slander: Libels are damages to reputation expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs; slander damages reputation by spoken words.

Fighting words: Words that are likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and cause a "breach of the peace."

So no, it is not protected by the First Amendment. :2wave:
 
Goobieman said:
Hmm. Seems to me, with this, that just about any sort of offensive language may fall under 'causes harm'.
Click to expand...

I think that there is a clear difference involved here due to the nature of grief and the fact that the words in question are designed to degrade the deceased.

Words such as these, uttered at a funeral are going to inflict harm "by their very utterance". The same cannot be said about "any" sort of offensive language, but certainly about specific types of offensive language.
 
Rightwing86 said:
Protesting at a funeral but in particular the words and signs used could easily fall under category three and four.

Libel and Slander: Libels are damages to reputation expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs; slander damages reputation by spoken words.
Click to expand...


The target of the slander/libel is DEAD. He or she cannot be damaged further.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The target of the slander/libel is DEAD. He or she cannot be damaged further.
Click to expand...

The reputation left from that person could be damaged, along with his family members. Plus it still falls under fighting words.

Reputation = what somebody is known for.

So therefore it can be damaged even after they are deceased.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
But do they cause lasting harm that is measurable? And if not, how would a jury award damages?
Click to expand...

By measurable do you mean that they can be documented, or do you mean they can be quantified (as in this caused 14 unhappiness units)?

Documentable, yes. They'd be present in therapy.

Quantifiable, no. Emotions are not quantifiable or measurable.

The damages would be awarded the same way all emotional damages are awarded.
 
Tucker Case said:
I think that there is a clear difference involved here due to the nature of grief and the fact that the words in question are designed to degrade the deceased.

Words such as these, uttered at a funeral are going to inflict harm "by their very utterance". The same cannot be said about "any" sort of offensive language, but certainly about specific types of offensive language.
Click to expand...

My concern here is that the subjective nature of all of this will eventually lead to the notion that we have a "freedom from being offended", because to cause offense is to bring harm.
 
Goobieman said:
My concern here is that the subjective nature of all of this will eventually lead to the notion that we have a "freedom from being offended", because to cause offense is to bring harm.
Click to expand...

It has been like this for quite a while. People just don't know. Look at fighting words or profanity or obscenity all of these things are not protected, some argue it is a slippery slope. I can understand that.
 
Goobieman said:
My concern here is that the subjective nature of all of this will eventually lead to the notion that we have a "freedom from being offended", because to cause offense is to bring harm.
Click to expand...

That is my concern, as well. And, the Phelps group are particularly appropriate for being used for this purpose because they are so universally reprehensible.
 
Rightwing86 said:
It has been like this for quite a while. People just don't know. Look at fighting words or profanity or obscenity all of these things are not protected, some argue it is a slippery slope. I can understand that.
Click to expand...
Fighting words, libel, slander, etc are all legitimate restrcitions -- they cause measureable harm or place people in a state of clear and present danger.

Beyond that, however, we have a simple illustration of how thin-skinned we have become, and how we see the need to have everything we do not like addressed in court.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The target of the slander/libel is DEAD. He or she cannot be damaged further.
Click to expand...

Yet there are laws and regulations concerning the treatment of a corpse.

On that note - since they're dead what's the point of protesting? These people use the fallen soldier as direct access TO large numbers of military personnel - you cannot try to convince me, not even for a second, that they only do it in regard to the fallen soldier without having any intention of insulting, offending, hurting or commiting slander and libel to the family and friends present.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is not good. It is not wrong though. The KKK has been granted assemblies at times that have have incited violence due to protestors. The police protect the KKK's right to free speech. Proximity has nothing to do with it. Is it rude? Yes. Is it illegal? No. Can problems or violence arise. Most likely. The first person to be violent is the offendor though.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
That is my concern, as well. And, the Phelps group are particularly appropriate for being used for this purpose because they are so universally reprehensible.
Click to expand...
Is this the 3rd time you've agreed with me today?
:2razz:
 
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...

I think that it would only bother a super religious person.
 
Flea said:
I think that it would only bother a super religious person.
Click to expand...

I think it would bother anyone and I have seen them say far worse.

When you are at the funeral of someone you love you are not in your normal state. Probably the thing that is most important to you is to feel your warmth for them and that is shattered by these people from hell. Even the most together people would be hurt.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yet there are laws and regulations concerning the treatment of a corpse.
Click to expand...

These laws are usually health-related. Are the Phelps protesters desecrating the body or attempting to fornicate with it?

On that note - since they're dead what's the point of protesting? These people use the fallen soldier as direct access TO large numbers of military personnel - you cannot try to convince me, not even for a second, that they only do it in regard to the fallen soldier without having any intention of insulting, offending, hurting or commiting slander and libel to the family and friends present.
Click to expand...

I think they use this primarily to access the global media. That they get to screw emotionally with service personnel is just icing on the cake for them.

Even so, no one is denying that they are assholes. Does the fact that they are assholes justify undermining the right of free speech that soldiers fight and die for?
 
alexa said:
You said you didn't think they interfered with the funeral.
Click to expand...

In the OP, they didn't. But even if they did, as long as they were following local laws and ordinances, there is no guarantee that people aren't going to disrupt your life. Burying people without being offended isn't a protected right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom