Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

Goobieman said:

Is this the 3rd time you've agreed with me today?
:2razz:

Click to expand...

Yes, and it ****ing pisses me off.

Catz Part Deux said:

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.

Click to expand...

You call this disrupting your life. Have you ever lost someone you loved?

Tucker Case said:

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.



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.

Click to expand...

I was lazy. There were some posts that all looked like that topic when I super freaky style skimmed it, sue me.

Under NH.'s Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address another person with "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place...or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."

What person is the religious protestor addressing? Dead soldiers? Like I said, not relevant. Not even the point.

Read Brandenburg v. Ohio to see how and why I made my decision. I think that you will find post Chaplinsky decisions interesting and understand that perhaps I have some tools that increase my knowledge to a level that you don't fully appreciate and that display that I am fully equipped.

alexa said:

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.

Click to expand...

I doubt I would. Even in a state of loss, I would think that people saying that I or my dead loved one going to hell was hillbilly stupid at best.

Flea said:

I doubt I would. Even in a state of loss, I would think that people saying that I or my dead loved one going to hell was hillbilly stupid at best.

Click to expand...

I cannot believe you. Do you feel?

alexa said:

I cannot believe you. Do you feel?

Click to expand...

ummmm, is this a trick question?

alexa said:

You call this disrupting your life. Have you ever lost someone you loved?

Click to expand...

I refuse to engage you on the basis of a logical fallacy. Counter with actual arguments or forget it.

Flea said:

ummmm, is this a trick question?

Click to expand...

Do you feel like a biscuit?

Do you feel like velvet?

It's an easy, unambiguous question.

:rofl

It's also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Flea said:

I doubt I would. Even in a state of loss, I would think that people saying that I or my dead loved one going to hell was hillbilly stupid at best.

Click to expand...

True dat. But I resent the term hillbilly stupid. Most of my relatives are intelligent enough to let such comments slide off them like water off a duck.

Catz Part Deux said:

I refuse to engage you on the basis of a logical fallacy. Counter with actual arguments or forget it.

Click to expand...

Is it heck a logical fallacy. You are avoiding looking at the situation because that is what the situation is.

and I am referring to all the goings on of these people I have seen at funerals.

So, maybe it's time to amend the Constitution to protect funeral goers from protests? This would solve the problem presented here.

alexa said:

Is it heck a logical fallacy. You are avoiding looking at the situation because that is what the situation is.

and I am referring to all the goings on of these people I have seen at funerals.

Click to expand...

Whether or not I've lost a loved one is irrelevant to the discussion. Your argument "Have you lost a loved one" is a fallacy known as appeal to pity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-pity.html). We are discussing whether a protest at a funeral is free speech, not conducting a grief and loss survey/support group.

MyOwnDrum said:

So, maybe it's time to amend the Constitution to protect funeral goers from protests? This would solve the problem presented here.

Click to expand...

WE should do it in Florida. It can go next to the constitutional amendments dictating the size of cages holding pregnant pigs and setting class sizes by age.

Catz Part Deux said:

Do you feel like a biscuit?

Do you feel like velvet?

It's an easy, unambiguous question.

:rofl

It's also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Click to expand...

I feel like crap. Kinda mushy and lumpy. Like I'm being flushed into hell.

Catz Part Deux said:

True dat. But I resent the term hillbilly stupid. Most of my relatives are intelligent enough to let such comments slide off them like water off a duck.

Click to expand...

Farmer Tan Stupid? Redneck Stupid? Tiger Woods Loving Stupid? I have back-ups.

Catz Part Deux said:

Whether or not I've lost a loved one is irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing whether a protest at a funeral is free speech, not conducting a grief and loss survey/support group. hope that helps,sweetie.

Click to expand...

That may be the title of the thread but the thread has gone into the implications of the effect of the right to hurl obscenities at people while going to or coming out of a funeral.

It has already been mentioned by one poster that your constitution already recognises that there may be limits to free speech and from what he said if not on this occasion then certainly on others it has been transgressed.

Possibly if one does not have the ability to have empathy or to imagine what it is like one may just think that a funeral is just like any other day.

If one is unable to imagine how one would feel were this to be done at the funeral of those one loves most, it is difficult to see how they could come to a rational decision.

There are two issues and two rights here.

The right to hurl abuses

The right to peace while you take your loved ones to their funeral and go home after.

alexa said:

That may be the title of the thread but the thread has gone into the implications of the effect of the right to hurl obscenities at people while going to or coming out of a funeral.

It has already been mentioned by one poster that your constitution already recognises that there may be limits to free speech and from what he said if not on this occasion then certainly on others it has been transgressed.

Possibly if one does not have the ability to have empathy or to imagine what it is like one may just think that a funeral is just like any other day.

If one is unable to imagine how one would feel were this to be done at the funeral of those one loves most, it is difficult to see how they could come to a rational decision.

There are two issues and two rights here.

The right to hurl abuses

The right to peace while you take your loved ones to their funeral and go home after.

Click to expand...

Do celebrities have the right to bring their newborns home without being nearly trampled by rude papparazi hurling rude questions about affairs? There is no precedent for your worries.

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 concern completely ignores the location/situation specific aspects of argument being presented, though.

If it were merely a "freedom from offense" argument, the words would be prevented anywhere, as they can always have the potential to cause offense.

This is more than just freedom from being offended. This is freedom form having to deal with people deliberately trying to inflict emotional harm on you during a time of bereavement.

What everyone needs to understand that there is no such thing as "measurable" harm. Harm to the individual cannot be quantified by any means. There's no such thing as a harm unit. You can't measure it. You can document it, such as "The bullet entered through his left side, lacerated his kidney, broke through his spinal column, severed his spine, and exited through his lower back" but you can't measure it. You can't say "The bullet inflicted 16 units of harm to his left side, 42 units of harm to his kidney and 68 units of harm to his vertebrae, 22 units of harm to his spine and 32.3 units of harm to his back upon exit".

Therefore, the documentability of the harm is important, not the measurablity.

Simply being offended by a statement would not be likely, in most cases, to cause documentable emotional harm. It will cause emotional discomfort, at worst, in most cases. Thus, protesting somewhere other than a soldier's funeral with a "Thank God for Dead soldiers" sign, would not, in and of itself, be likely to cause emotional harm because more often than not, the only thing that will occur is personal offense.

However, someone gloating about the death of a loved one outside of their funeral is a different story altogether. Protesting outside of a soldier's funeral with a "Thank God for Dead soldiers" or "You sons are burning in Hell" sign are likely to cause documentable emotional harm. In almost all cases, some harm will be inflicted, and in many cases, these types of sign may incite a breach of the peace simply by being uttered where they are uttered.

The situation-specific nature of whether or not the words are harmful precludes the slippery slope nature of your concerns. It makes it non-subjective. It's actually very objective because such things cannot be twisted to include simply taking offense.

Flea said:

Do celebrities have the right to bring their newborns home without being nearly trampled by rude papparazi hurling rude questions about affairs? There is no precedent for your worries.

Click to expand...

it is not the same thing at all and celebrities usually love the limelight anyway. Now if you think that at the funeral of say Princess Dianna these phelps people would be there hurling abuses and obscenities and assuming her funeral was in the United States, what exactly do you think would happen?

Please remember the people who the phelps abuse have done no wrong.

Catz Part Deux said:

WE should do it in Florida. It can go next to the constitutional amendments dictating the size of cages holding pregnant pigs and setting class sizes by age.

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me... :rofl

alexa said:

it is not the same thing at all and celebrities usually love the limelight anyway. Now if you think that at the funeral of say Princess Dianna these phelps people would be there hurling abuses and obscenities and assuming her funeral was in the United States, what exactly do you think would happen?

Please remember the people who the phelps abuse have done no wrong.

Click to expand...

Phelps? never heard that term before.

These people were not standing in the way or even near the funeral, the dad did not even know that it happened until he saw it on the news later that night. It is not like the protestors were screaming obsenities at some poor parent going to bury their kid, get a grip already.

Tucker Case said:

That concern completely ignores the location/situation specific aspects of argument being presented, though.

Click to expand...

This presumes that these will not change.

This is more than just freedom from being offended. This is freedom form having to deal with people deliberately trying to inflict emotional harm on you during a time of bereavement.

Click to expand...

Fow now.

The argument here can be applied in any number of ways to any number of situations. If you were bombarded by shouts of "(your favorite team) suck!" as you walked ouf of the stadium after a stunning, shockiong and absolutely humiliating Superbowl loss, you are in a similar situation.

Or, for that matter, what;s the real difference between that and the KKK gathering in th eghetto-homie part of town, talking about what they usuall talk about? How long before that is considered 'emotonal harm'?

What everyone needs to understand that there is no such thing as "measurable" harm. Harm to the individual cannot be quantified by any means

Click to expand...

.
Financial loss, physical injuries, etc.
These things -can- be measured -- and, if you wanted to, you could create a
'unit' from those measurements, describing equivelancies among them.

The situation-specific nature of whether or not the words are harmful precludes the slippery slope nature of your concerns.

Click to expand...

Only if this does not change.

It makes it non-subjective.

Click to expand...

Without a measureable standard of harm, as you argue, it is all subjective.

Flea said:

I doubt I would. Even in a state of loss, I would think that people saying that I or my dead loved one going to hell was hillbilly stupid at best.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. Since 'hell' doesn't exist, I'd pretty much be apathetic about such silly comments. Such comments would only show me the idiocy of the person saying them and certainly not be a bother to me.

rivrrat said:

I agree with that. Since 'hell' doesn't exist, I'd pretty much be apathetic about such silly comments. Such comments would only show me the idiocy of the person saying them and certainly not be a bother to me.

Click to expand...

I had a friend all of a sudden bust out one day how religious she was and that the jokes we were making made it a certainty that we were going to hell. I clarified, and she said not just hell, but we would burn in the depths of hell and that demons would torture us for eternity. It was funny. I was struck at how stupid that sounded and have never changed my thought.

alexa said:

Possibly if one does not have the ability to have empathy or to imagine what it is like one may just think that a funeral is just like any other day.

Click to expand...

This is some great pathos you've created here. It would probably make me sob uncontrollably if I didn't have a black hole where my heart should be.

If one is unable to imagine how one would feel were this to be done at the funeral of those one loves most, it is difficult to see how they could come to a rational decision.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have anything to do with whether protesters at funerals make baby Jesus or you cry. It's a matter of law and constitutional rights.

The right to hurl abuses

Click to expand...

For the most part, constitutionally protected.

The right to peace while you take your loved ones to their funeral and go home after.

Click to expand...

Really. Where is this right protected in the constitution?

When all is said and done, that's all that matters.