• 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:
Now, ironically as all hell, you are getting "so ****ing pissy" because you have erroneously perceives my mere restatement of something you have said yourself as an "attack" and a "label. i.e. you erroneously perceive my comments to be "badmouthing" you.

Think about that. Think about your reaction to me restatement and how it inherently contradicts what you said above about being confused.
Click to expand...

I am not pissy, I just swear a lot. So the **** what? This proves nothing.
 
Flea said:
I understand the points that they are making. I undestand the reactions. I understand the ****ing emotions. Dude, get over yourself. Instead of assuming I don't understand, which is condescending and lame, by the way, maybe you should try to figure out why I am saying what I am saying. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm not making an assumption that you don't understand. I'm actually taking your words at face value. In what world would "If there is one thing that has always confused me..." equates to "I fully understand"? :confused:

See, I'm confused about why you are taking offense to what I'm saying. When I say that, I very literally mean, I do not understand why you are taking offense to what I'm saying.

Are you using some definition of "confused" I am unfamiliar with?

If you were able to actually make a case against what I said, then I would listen. Just saying straw man doesn't mean anything. I am picking apart the way that they are saying it. I obviously used the words that he used. That is the scenario that I described. I changed nothing and took nothing out of context. Re-read his post and my scenario. He said if a guy comes down to disrespect they would get some boondock asswhoopin and that is what I described. If they want to say what they actually mean, that would certainly help. That is the point. It was not a straw man. If you looked at this objectively, you might be able to understand this point instead of compounding the issue.
Click to expand...

I read your scenario. Specifically the "talking smack about American Forces as he is fishing in hickville" part of it.

Perhaps you can explain, objectively, how "talking about American Forces as he is fishing in hickville" is identical to "protest at the grave" of someones grandfather?

Objectively, I cannot reconcile the two as being remotely close to similar.

Perhaps if you explained in detail how these two situations are actually remotely close to similar, I would be able to understand why it isn't a strawman.

Because as it stands, objectively speaking, I would have to say it is obvioulsy a strawman. One so obvious that I cannot fathom how you could possibly try to argue that it isn't one.

Thus, I would actually require an argument on why these situations are comparable, because I am incapable of making that comparison myself.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm not making an assumption that you don't understand. I'm actually taking your words at face value. In what world would "If there is one thing that has always confused me..." equates to "I fully understand"? :confused:

See, I'm confused about why you are taking offense to what I'm saying. When I say that, I very literally mean, I do not understand why you are taking offense to what I'm saying.

Are you using some definition of "confused" I am unfamiliar with?
Click to expand...

Apparently I am. I just explained it to you. It is the context that you are ignoring. Now, you can think that I am lying, that would be better than trying to prove that I only said confused because I was only confused about that one aspect in that one said and not in a broader context, as I explained. Either way, this conversation is nearing its end out of shear stupidity.



I read your scenario. Specifically the "talking smack about American Forces as he is fishing in hickville" part of it.

Perhaps you can explain, objectively, how "talking about American Forces as he is fishing in hickville" is identical to "protest at the grave" of someones grandfather?

Objectively, I cannot reconcile the two as being remotely close to similar.

Perhaps if you explained in detail how these two situations are actually
remotely close to similar, I would be able to understand why it isn't a strawman.
Click to expand...

I made up a scenario that helped put his scenario into perspective. He brought up some person going ten miles past some boondock to talk bad about his grandad from WWII. How that person would get an asswhoopin. How does an Italien vet talking bad about American Forces (vets from WWII, his grandad) NOT MAKE SENSE? If you guys don't like my "straw man" then don't set up silly scenarios that can be so easily proven ridiculous.

He said a person, and then tried to claim he said "organized protest" when he specifically said a "person" walking ten miles down some hilly billy sounding place to disrespect his dead grandad. I changed nothing about content. I only added context to show how ridiculous his statements are. He didn't say, if some 25 year old tough guy walks down the road and talks ****, he'll get an asswhoopin, he made it open ended. A person

Does that help?

EDIT: Did you read post #224?
 
Last edited:
Flea said:
OK. But have you never heard a person say they were confused about why somebody does something, NOT because they do not understand why they do it, but because what they are doing is so insane that THAT is what they are confused about. Why people are insane. Why they make stupid comments. Now, I can also understand this. Why people say what they say. Why they are insane, even if for a moment. Psychological disorders, emotional outbursts, lots of reasons.

I am not actually confused, does his make sense. I know tons of people that make such a simple and easily understood comment. On the internet, that might not be as clear. I understand if my comment was taken out of context. Hopefully this sheds new light on my perception and position.
Click to expand...

If you are confused about something, you can't possibly understand it. The two are mutually exclusive conditions.

But even allowing for your somewhat contradictory explanation, my words were specifically chosen to point out that I was interpreting your statement to mean what it looks like it means, and what the definition of the words used imply that it means.

Hence, my addition of the word "seem" in "even though you don't seem to understand".

This means "appear". The appearances of your statement are very clear based on the fact that being confused and having an understanding are mutually exclusive conditions.

But I allowed for a possible misinterpretation of your words on my part by making sure to include that qualifier in my sentence. This is because, as they say, appearances can be deceiving.

So in any case, the truth of the matter, what any objective observer would have to attest to, is that I made a valid, although incorrect, interpretation of your statements and allowed for my incorrectness by including the word "seem" in my interpretation.

this clearly indicates that:

1. It was not a label I was placing upon you. It was only a description of what my perceptions about your "confusion" meant.

2. It was not an attack.
 
Flea said:
I am not pissy, I just swear a lot. So the **** what? This proves nothing.
Click to expand...

Swearing a lot is not what was "pissy". It was your stated refusal to continue reading the post based on your erroneous assumption that my description of my perceptions was an attack.
 
Flea said:
Holy ****. You said "A PERSON" Not a ****ing "organized" protest which makes it sound like a lot of people. You didn't say organized once. Grow a ****ing pair of balls and admit your mistake and stop acting like a silly little twat. :roll:
Click to expand...
Yeah.

Go be obtuse with someone else. I'm not interested.
 
Tucker Case said:
If you are confused about something, you can't possibly understand it. The two are mutually exclusive conditions.

But even allowing for your somewhat contradictory explanation, my words were specifically chosen to point out that I was interpreting your statement to mean what it looks like it means, and what the definition of the words used imply that it means.

Hence, my addition of the word "seem" in "even though you don't seem to understand".

This means "appear". The appearances of your statement are very clear based on the fact that being confused and having an understanding are mutually exclusive conditions.

But I allowed for a possible misinterpretation of your words on my part by making sure to include that qualifier in my sentence. This is because, as they say, appearances can be deceiving.

So in any case, the truth of the matter, what any objective observer would have to attest to, is that I made a valid, although incorrect, interpretation of your statements and allowed for my incorrectness by including the word "seem" in my interpretation.

this clearly indicates that:

1. It was not a label I was placing upon you. It was only a description of what my perceptions about your "confusion" meant.

2. It was not an attack.
Click to expand...

I allow for misunderstandings on either parties part. I made a confusing state about being confused, I agree and accept that. Hopefully, I clarified what I meant. The attack part came from your statement about me not "understanding", but I see how you thought that now.
 
Flea said:
Apparently I am. I just explained it to you. It is the context that you are ignoring. Now, you can think that I am lying, that would be better than trying to prove that I only said confused because I was only confused about that one aspect in that one said and not in a broader context, as I explained. Either way, this conversation is nearing its end out of shear stupidity.
Click to expand...

That one aspect was "why" according to the context of the sentence.

Simple fact: Confusion and understanding are mutually exclusive conditions. If you say you are confused about the "why" of something, you cannot possibly have any understanding about the "why" of something.

No context exists for the word "confused" that conveys that which you wished it to convey.


I made up a scenario that helped put his scenario into perspective.
Click to expand...

And then you argued against that made up scenario. Look up what a strawman is. You just admitted that you made one.

He brought up some person going ten miles past some boondock to talk bad about his grandad from WWII. How that person would get an asswhoopin. How does an Italien vet talking bad about American Forces (vets from WWII, his grandad) NOT MAKE SENSE? If you guys don't like my "straw man" then don't set up silly scenarios that can be so easily proven ridiculous.[/QUOTe

What part of "over his grave" does not make sense to you?

He said a person, and then tried to claim he said "organized protest" when he specifically said a "person" walking ten miles down some hilly billy sounding place to disrespect his dead grandad. I changed nothing about content. I only added context to show how ridiculous his statements are. He didn't say, if some 25 year old tough guy walks down the road and talks ****, he'll get an asswhoopin, he made it open ended. A person

Does that help?

EDIT: Did you read post #224?
Click to expand...

You added a context that was entirely different from the one he had already given.

The problem here appears to be that you are confused (read: do not understand) as to what a strawman is.

You've just admitted twice that you did create a strawman.
Click to expand...
 
Tucker Case said:
Swearing a lot is not what was "pissy". It was your stated refusal to continue reading the post based on your erroneous assumption that my description of my perceptions was an attack.
Click to expand...

Oh. OK. Neither of us is a dick or anything. Basic miscommunication. You are more open than Coronado and Kali, sorry to lump you in with them.
 
Flea said:
I allow for misunderstandings on either parties part. I made a confusing state about being confused, I agree and accept that. Hopefully, I clarified what I meant. The attack part came from your statement about me not "understanding", but I see how you thought that now.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify: I didn't make a statement about you not understanding. I made a statement about my perceptions of your understanding. That's why I put the "seem" in there.


I'm tend to be very fastidious about my word choices. If I put a word like "seem" in there, it's there for a specific reason. Think about it. The sentence works without the inclusion of seem to, and in that case it would definitely be a claim that you do not understand: "Even though you don't understand why" has a different meaning from "even though you don't seem to understand why".

If I had intended for it to be a claim about your level of understanding, I would have made sure to exclude the superfluous "seem to" from the sentence.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You also think we have a right to healthcare. Neither of these "rights" are constitutional.
Click to expand...
i do think that, but our constitution can be interpreted many ways, and i believe "promoting the general welfare" covers the affordable access to healthcare.

it also seems to me there is a right to privacy when burying our dead.
 
liblady said:
i do think that, but our constitution can be interpreted many ways, and i believe "promoting the general welfare" covers the affordable access to healthcare.
Click to expand...

Really. In almost 300 years, it's never been interpreted that way.

it also seems to me there is a right to privacy when burying our dead.
Click to expand...

The right to privacy applies to GOVERNMENT intrusions, not private ones.
 
Tucker Case said:
That one aspect was "why" according to the context of the sentence.

Simple fact: Confusion and understanding are mutually exclusive conditions. If you say you are confused about the "why" of something, you cannot possibly have any understanding about the "why" of something.

No context exists for the word "confused" that conveys that which you wished it to convey.




And then you argued against that made up scenario. Look up what a strawman is. You just admitted that you made one.

He brought up some person going ten miles past some boondock to talk bad about his grandad from WWII. How that person would get an asswhoopin. How does an Italien vet talking bad about American Forces (vets from WWII, his grandad) NOT MAKE SENSE? If you guys don't like my "straw man" then don't set up silly scenarios that can be so easily proven ridiculous.[/QUOTe

What part of "over his grave" does not make sense to you?



You added a context that was entirely different from the one he had already given.

The problem here appears to be that you are confused (read: do not understand) as to what a strawman is.

You've just admitted twice that you did create a strawman.
Click to expand...

I didn't misrepresent what he said and I didn't create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a similar proposition. The context I added complimented his existing information. I did not add anything that did not change his intended position or the outcome. The position is still the same, a guy talking bad about his grandad would get an asswhoopin, and I didnt create an illusion of anything out of context. You are free to continue to think that I created a straw man though.
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
They aren't at the cemetery I don't think, and they aren't in the Church. So they're not disrupting the services; you just see them as you go too and from the services. Assembly, association, and protest are essential and if Phelps and Co. are the price of admission to keep it; I'll take it.
Click to expand...
well, it seems i've swallowed my foot. evidently snyder did't see OR hear them at the funeral.

The protesters -- Phelps and six family members -- broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.
Click to expand...


i still loathe them.
 
liblady said:
i still loathe them.
Click to expand...

Oh, they're not people to look up to in the least. I think that they should be protested everywhere they go. "God hates self-righteous douchebags" with an arrow pointing to them. Still, I'll accept that these self-righteous douchebags have the right to speech, assembly, association, and protest.
 
I am going to bow out of this discussion in as polite a manner as I can. Get ready.

Bye.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Really. In almost 300 years, it's never been interpreted that way.



The right to privacy applies to GOVERNMENT intrusions, not private ones.
Click to expand...
social security, medicare/medicaid. you are correct about the right to privacy.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
It's okay to loathe them. It isn't okay to deprive them of basic constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
if i knew, however, they they disrupted funerals, i would feel different. but since synder didn't see or hear them, i don't really know how intrusive they were.

once violence breaks out, as is bound to occur, we'll see what happnes.
 
liblady said:
social security, medicare/medicaid.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between society stepping up and taking care of those who are infirm, old, or ill, and providing global health care. Your "reading" of the constitution is quite novel.
 
liblady said:
if i knew, however, they they disrupted funerals, i would feel different. but since synder didn't see or hear them, i don't really know how intrusive they were.

once violence breaks out, as is bound to occur, we'll see what happnes.
Click to expand...
Exactly right, for a court challenge on the standing of the right itself as pertains to this situation it first must be tested in reality.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
It's okay to loathe them. It isn't okay to deprive them of basic constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
I agree to an extent, the problem though comes from the question of whether or not they have overstepped the basic right. Even though I wish the worst for these scum, I must thank them begrudgingly for the next interesting study of the first amendment and it's limits.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
It isn't okay to deprive them of basic constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify another point, the arguments I'm presenting would not deprive them of any basic constitutional rights. They would still be free to share their views.

They would still be free to protest at/during funerals. They would also still be free have protests with signs that say things like "Fag Soldier in Hell" and "God Killed your sons".

They simply would not be free to combine those two things.

That is not a deprivation of one's right to free speech. It's a common sense argument designed to prevent harm to the bereaved (and the douchebags who maliciously attack them) and a breech of the peace.

They still would be able to hold the complete protest, with all the signs they want, anywhere else at the time that the funeral is being held (say another town altogether).

They would still be able to hold their protest in the same location sans certain malicious signage in any location by the funeral during the time that the funeral is being held.

What exactly is limited by that?

The ability to say whatever they want, whenever they want, where ever they want?

That's a reasonable limitation.

For example: They would not be allowed to protest at an airport with a sign that says "Pray for more blown up airplane passengers". They'd be stopped from doing this.

Thus, I would argue this is identical to saying that they shouldn't be allowed to say "Pray for more dead soldiers" at a dead soldier's funeral.
 
Tucker Case said:
Just to clarify another point, the arguments I'm presenting would not deprive them of any basic constitutional rights. They would still be free to share their views.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the court is going to decide your way. Historically, fighting words have been extremely limited, and the court has almost always decided in favor of nearly unlimited speech. but, nice try. And you looked cute doing it. ;)

especially in this case, in light of the fact that the signs and protests weren't even visible at the funeral or burial, I don't think the plaintiff has a snowball's chance. But, you never know.

Let me put it like this: This is the same court that decided that corporations have 1st Amendment rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom