Bill Would Limit Protests At Military Funerals

[sabra]

http://www.wtov9.com/news/5863452/detail.html

Bill Would Limit Protests At Military Funerals


LINCOLN, Neb. -- Disturbed by protests at military burials by members of a church who say God is punishing American soldiers, a Nebraska lawmaker wants to limit how close such protests can be to a funeral service.

Sen. Mike Friend of Omaha has introduced a bill that would make it illegal to picket within 100 feet of any part of a funeral service.

Similar measures have been introduced in Missouri, Indiana and Oklahoma.

The Rev. Fred Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., contends that U.S. soldiers are being killed in Iraq as God's punishment for America's acceptance of homosexuality.

[LostinVA]

1. Excellent idea

their First Amendment rights stop when they step on someone else's rights.

[endarkenment]

11. in a public area you have no right to be free from protest.

Any limitation on peaceful public protest is a violation of all of our rights, no matter how much you might disagree with the protestors.

[merwin]

14. Public places can be blocked off for certain events, such as parades.

Why not block them off for military funerals?

[endarkenment]

25. I can't bring a sign to a parade?

Actually you are right. I went to the last two inaugurations and they had turned DC into a military zone and were actively supressing all free speech under some sort of limited marital law bullshit. I found that to be a direct violation of my constitutional rights. I refuse to condone similar treatment of Mr. Phelps just because he is an odious shit.

[merwin]

57. What I mean is that you can restrict people from certain areas for

an event. You couldn't just walk right into the middle of a parade with your sign. You have to stay along the side. You also can't take your sign into the county couthouse or onto your local runway and expect to last very long. There are legitimate reasons to restrict areas.

Also, by picketing a funeral, you are infringing on the rights of the family of the deceased. There's a difference between protesting at a private event and protesting at an open government event.

[wtmusic]

15. the key: "peaceful" protest

if the protestors shout or bring megaphones you run afoul of 'disturbing the peace', which at a funeral should be held to a strict standard.

[endarkenment]

23. I guess I am just a 1st amendment absolutist.

So if Fred Phelps and his disgusting cru just quietly stand there with their 'Burn in Hell Fag' signs - that is ok, but if they chant 'Die Fag Die' they should go to jail?

Suppression of his rights in this situation justifies suppression of your rights in another situation. To me this is obvious. Why it isn't to those who so blithely volunteer to surrender our rights escapes me.

[wtmusic]

27. Absolutely

is it okay with you if someone stands (on public property) outside your home and rails against abortion through a megaphone 8 hours a day?

[endarkenment]

29. yeah sure.

Go ahead. Have a blast. Its about 1/4 mile from the street to my house. Most likely the megaphone will violate noise ordinances, so if they keep within the decible limitations, yes they have the right to stand in a public area and rail against the war in iraq, corruption in congress, or whatever else floats their boat.

[merwin]

58. But doesn't Phelps picketing the funeral infringe on the 1st amendment

rights of the people attending the funeral? "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

[trogdor]

28. I've made 100 foot putts before.

This is more of an anti-in-your-face bill than anything else. I don't want to smell the Phelps family's B.O. either.

[endarkenment]

30. And once again it is just speech you don't like. nt.

[wtmusic]

34. not really

it's more of whatever society determines an acceptable level of respect is.

You can't walk down the street with no clothes on, you can't walk up to passersby and says things like "Fuck you!" or "Nice tits!"

Yet both are technically free speech.

[LostinVA]

50. Straw man

To quote the latest Star Wars movie: "Only Siths deal is absolutes." I believe this. Phelps has no Constitutional right to this harassment and defamation.

It is offensive to me that you are claiming major libs on this board are against free speech. Not at all. I am against harassment, evilness, slander, libel, hate crimes, etc... all of which Phelps and his evil gang engage in. This is not a legit, peaceful protest... it is criminal.

[AnneD]

32. Usually a cemetary is considered

private property, either belonging to the church, funeral trust, etc. If it is a township or city cemetary, laws covering protest assemblies could apply. I am not sure about Federal Military Cemetaries-maybe, if they are feeling lucky, they should test the waters at Arlington. I think there are laws that can slow them up-like granting a parade permit after the funeral, enforcing noise ordinances. Let them protest "within the law".

[onenote]

36. what about laws limiting protesters in front of clinics

where abortions are performed? What's the difference?

onenote

[endarkenment]

40. none.

I think those laws are an abomination.

[onenote]

42. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect you for your consistency

thanks

onenote

[LostinVA]

49. Sorry, I can';t agree with you on this

This isn't protesting, it's harassment and slander and libel. You can't burn a cross on public property. You can't say you want to kill the president. There are lots of ways where free speech is limited for a LEGITIMATE reason. This bill is legit.

[Coastie for Truth]

62. This was an essay question on the afternoon (3 hour) section

of the July 1998 California Bar Exam.

That means that the facts as posited are still an open question in the 9th Circuit.

The law in the hyper-liberal 9th Circuit is that you can "limit" demonstrations to an "accessible" area.

[wtmusic]

2. No protests within 9,000 miles

Go for it. Funerals are not the place for protesting. Ever.

[Benhurst]

10. It's still a matter of free speech, which should be protected.

But they should be made to keep their distance, in deference to the friends and families of the deceased.

Their actions speak for themselves. Let them earn the contempt of their fellow citizens. They are their own worst enemies.

[onehandle]

3. How about a Bill to deport these nutballs instead? nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. Deport them to where?

What country would want them? We made them, I think we have to keep them.

[LostinVA]

5. I think they made themselves

America didn't make Ted Bundy, and it sure as hell didn't make this freakazoid and his spawn.

[geckosfeet]

8. Well, he/they did come from somewhere. Distasteful as it is,

these spawn of satan were born and bred in the US of A. Denial won't make these twisted minds go away. As a matter of fact, denying that these people exist may encourage them to yell louder.

I am not sure what this all says about us, but it does make me think.

[LostinVA]

51. Who's denying they exist?

I'm just saying thus country didn';t make Phelps. His own twisted mind and spirit did. He's a sociopath, plain and simple.

[EST]

6. Uh, which are the nutballs?

[saigon68]

7. THESE NUTBALLS ???

[Democrats_win]

9. What about anti-choice groups protesting outside doctor´s houses?

The courts have ruled that this is ok, so I wonder if this law is unonstitutional. It´s still terrible to protest at any funeral!

[AnneD]

33. Usually as long as you are on the

sidewalks (considered public) and are not blocking a throughfare and sometimes you need to be careful of the number of protesters-you are within your rights. It cuts both ways-remember Rove being faced with protestors.

[madrchsod]

12. baseball bats-who needs another law?

[China_cat]

13. Why can't they just be arrested for disturbing the peace?

And, much as I abhor 'free speech zones' maybe looking up the legalities of whether a cemetery is public or private property would be a good idea. Because you BUY a cemetery plot. It is land you own. In this state you pay tax on it. So I think the line there needs to be clarified. You could definitely charge protesters with trespass if they came in your yard without your invitation, with unlawful entry if they entered your house without your permission so why would a gathering at other property you own be exempt from those same laws?

[Ian David]

16. Very bad idea. What constitutes a "funeral"?

What if every time a Republican held a rally, they called it a "Rally to support The President and to honor our war dead"?

What if every rally or political speech was described as a "memorial service" and was protected as a "funeral"?

And why do they finally get upset at Phelps for protesting at military funerals when for years they said nothing while he protested at gay funerals?

Fred Phelps even protested at the funeral of Mister Rogers!

[dogfacedboy]

20. Funerals generally take place on private property.

A funeral home is private property. A cemetery is private property. Free speech isn't guaranteed on private property. You can say whatever you want in my house, but the second I don't like what you're saying, my right to put you out on your ear becomes the law. While I would disagree with any law limiting free speech, I would certainly go along with local law enforcement using any legal power they have in order to keep the peace at these funerals. This is a matter in which one has to consider the situation-- a funeral for a fallen US soldier that died while doing her/his job. How about a little respect.

[Ian David]

21. I say then apply the law to ALL funerals and carefully define "funeral"

In Massachusetts, there is a law against disrupting funerals, funeral processions, houses of worship, and schools. It creates a "buffer zone" outside such activities.

So long as the law doesn't allow someone to declare a public rally to be a "funeral" for the sole purpose of stifling dissent, I'd support it-- and so long as it applies equally to all funerals.

[endarkenment]

26. Except when they don't.

The private owners of a place of business can bar people from entering their property. But they cannot bar people from public spaces around their property.

There certainly are publicly owned cemetaries.

[Dulcinea]

31. That's what I was thinking too.

Phelps & his ilk have no rights on private property, like funeral homes, but no one can keep them off the sidewalks or the streets. That's the law.

Much as I despise them & any whackjob who would protest a funeral, there's nothing anyone can do unless they're creating a disturbance, & then it becomes another matter, one for law enforcement to deal with.

They do their cause no good protesting funerals of fallen servicemen/women. The average American is repelled by such a lack of respect for the dead.

[davsand]

17. Any speech that makes you uncomfortable is most in need of protection.

It sucks. I hate what Phelps is doing and saying, but the bottom line is that if HE can be prevented from protesting so can you--so can we ALL.

You simply can't legislate taste or manners.

This is wrong on SO many levels.



Laura

[LiberalAndProud]

54. I have no desire to protest at funerals. Not even if Cheney should die.

I am willing to forfeit that particular "right".

[davsand]

55. Do you also cede your ability to protest outside the Whitehouse?

Are you also willing to write off your ability to protest ANYWHERE publicly--for any reason?

I'm not. I am also unwilling to piss all over the people in our nation's history that have bled, died or wept over anyone who has been willing to fight in defense of our freedoms. They found all our freedoms to be worth standing up, and I feel we should do no less.

The ideal of freedom of speech is not an abstract one, nor is it something that we can ever afford to let weaken in any way if we are to remain free participants in a democratic process.

Protesting at a funeral is low--no argument there. Protecting freedom of speech, however, means that even the disgusting repugnant stuff has got to remain free. Remember always, however, "disgusting and repugnant" are in the eye of the beholder. YOUR message could be the next one that is censored.



Laura

[LiberalAndProud]

56. No.

Are you also willing to write off your ability to protest ANYWHERE publicly--for any reason?

I believe that Fred Phelps freedom of speech ends where my freedom to worship begins.

Fred protests in front of churches and cemeteries almost exclusively. It is vile.

[bluestateguy]

18. I have a compromise suggestion

Don't pass this law. Instead, just say that if these people get to close to the funeral, then they are fair game for retaliatory attacks. They can be beat up with no criminal penalties.

[PittPoliSci]

63. mob rule rules.

period :-)

[RagingInMiami]

19. I don't agree with those protesters

But I don't agree with a new bill that would limit these protests either.

It can only lead to more bills against other types of protests. And who knows what else they will include in that bill that will not get publicized, such as, no protesting near U.S. Military institutions.

[Ian David]

22. Remember when Ronald Reagan put the wreath on a SS Nazi grave?

I believe there was some sort of protest.

Michael Moore was there, I think.

[endarkenment]

24. Yeah but see that is different

because we agree with those protestors. People let their emotions rule their thoughts. What a shame.

[Kolesar]

35. Bonzo goes to Bitburg

[RagingInMiami]

38. Wow. I have no idea what you're talking about

Educate me.

[endarkenment]

41. Reagan went to the military cemetary in Germany

and put a wreath on a tomb for SS soldiers. Google bitburg and reagan. Quite revolting. lets let bygones be bygones.

[Ian David]

43. Here you go

Keep in mind that these were not just regular rank-and-file drafted into the army and forced to fight soldiers that Reagan was honoring. These were the Nazi SS- the elite stormtroopers and concentration camp guards.







<snip>

Two years before his well-known speech at the Brandenburg Gate, Reagan had paid a much more controversial visit to Germany. The president's May 1985 trip to the German town of Bitburg to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the end of World War II was the target of criticism from those who thought Reagan should not participate in a wreath-laying ceremony in a military cemetery where former Nazi Waffen-SS soldiers were buried. German chancellor Helmut Kohl was also criticized at the time, but Reagan viewed the ceremony as an opportunity to show reconciliation between the two former enemy nations. On the occasion of Reagan's death, Kohl said: "Diese große Geste der Freundschaft zwischen unseren Ländern werde ich immer in Erinnerung behalten." ("This grand gesture of friendship between our countries will forever remain in my memory.") Kohl, a member of Germany's conservative CDU, and the Republican Reagan were much closer in political orientation in the 1980s than Bush and Schröder are today.

More:
http://german.about.com/od/geschichte/a/reagan.htm



Also:
INSIGHT

Remembering Ronald Reagan

Aired June 7, 2004 - 23:00:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

<snip>

{HOWARD} KURTZ: Why was the coverage so contentious? Some critics blamed liberal journalists, but it was more than that.

The news business covers the controversies of the day, when unemployment hit 10 percent in 1982 after Reagan cut taxes; the huge flap over Reagan's 1985 decision to visit a Nazi cemetery, not to mention the flap over Nancy Reagan's advice based on astrology.

<snip>

This is Howard Kurtz of CNN's RELIABLE SOURCES.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHURCH: We're going to take a short break now. When we return, examining the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/07/i_ins.00.html




http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/HSTDEPT/walker/OldNSChronology/Stackelberg(2002)16.jpg


See also:
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/ronald-reagan/


The Promise of Never Again
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
1985, President Ronald Reagan was scheduled to visit a cemetery in Bitburg, West
Germany to. lay a wreath and commemorate the 40 ...
http://www.adl.org/education/curriculum_connections/spring_2005/handouts_lesson_2.pdf


Also:

Originally Posted November 19, 2003
Reagan Remembered

<snip>

The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project is already working to name at least one notable public landmark in his honor in each state and all 3067 U.S. counties. My mind reels at the possibilties.

Conveniently blocked from our collective memory by the edifice of manufactured glory will be Reagan’s support for Saddam Hussein, Reagan's Nicaraguan terrorist “Freedom Fighters,” Reagan's violation of the Boland Amendment, Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan's Beirut disaster, Reagan's arms for hostages deal, Reagan's denial of the AIDS epidemic, Reagan's wreath-laying at Bitburg, Reagan's close ties with Ferdinand Marcos, John Poindexter, James Watt…SOMEBODY STOP ME!!

All of these unsavory Reaganisms will be trivialized, sanitized or censored not unlike the CBS mini-series The Reagans. And well they should be. For as Reagan once said, “Facts are stupid things.”

In that spirit, he also said:

"A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?"

More:
http://www.nathancallahan.com/reagan.html



Also:

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050523/ames
Bush's Bitburg?

by MARK AMES

{from the May 23, 2005 issue}

Many analysts are saying that President Bush's decision to visit Latvia just two days before heading to Moscow to celebrate the victory over Nazi Germany was designed to "send a message" to Russian leader Vladimir Putin. But by choosing Latvia, a former Soviet republic that became independent in 1991, Bush is stirring bitter controversy among Nazism's greatest victims and risking a repeat of Ronald Reagan's Bitburg fiasco. "I am sorry that this is the time for the visit," said Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Jerusalem. "If the Baltics had really repented for the terrible crimes that their nationals committed during the Holocaust, then it would make far more sense to 'reward them' by a visit in the proximity of the sixtieth anniversary of the victory over the Nazis."

Moscow agrees. Official discrimination in Latvia and neighboring Estonia against their large Russian-speaking minorities is one of post-Soviet Russia's greatest ongoing grievances, leading to repeated official protests. Putin raised the issue again in his April 25 State of the Union speech, calling on Latvia and Estonia to "prove in actions their respect for human rights, including the rights of national minorities." Another grievance, shared by Russians and Jews, is Latvia's disturbingly tolerant view of its own Nazi past. Zuroff complained that while Latvia has managed to prosecute several former Soviet functionaries for Communist crimes, not a single Nazi collaborator has been tried since the country became independent. In 2000 Zuroff discovered that at least forty-one Latvian members of the Arajs Kommando, a notorious Latvian security unit implicated in the shootings of thousands of Jews, had just been officially rehabilitated and rewarded with increased pensions.

Ninety-six percent of Latvia's Jews were killed in the Holocaust, one of Europe's highest rates and only made possible by enthusiastic local collaboration. Latvia also had one of the highest per capita recruitment rates into special SS legions, whose veterans are revered as "freedom fighters." Today Latvia is the only country in Europe to host annual SS veteran processions commemorating the day the divisions were formed (Estonia used to hold them too). Both the Latvian Parliament and President Vaira Vike-Freiberga--whom Zuroff labeled a "metaphor for the whole problem"--at one time considered combining the day of the SS march with the national memorial holiday. Aleksandrs Gilmans, a former member of the Riga city parliament and an ethnic-Russian Jew, was one of more than thirty protesters arrested at the SS procession in March. "The problem is that there was never a process of de-Nazification in Latvia," he said. "People here do not recognize Latvia's war guilt."

More:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050523/ames

[RagingInMiami]

45. Thanks

[Ian David]

46. You're welcome. I also just added a couple more links to that post. n/t

[SoCalDem]

37. Protests and funerals should NEVER co-mingle

just my .02, but geez louise, family should be able to bury their dead without others disrupting the service...no matter what !

[DS1]

39. 100 feet?

That's it? Try 1,000 yards

[buddysmellgood]

60. 100 feet is pretty damn close when you're trying to bury your dead.

[Plaid Adder]

44. Why don't they just pass a bill to commit Fred Phelps to an institution

where he could finally get some help?

It would have the same result, and be far more beneficial to the nation.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Strawman]

47. Let them "system" work as it is

These assholes are going to do this to the wrong family someday. And they will get beaten within inches of their lives.

Good luck finding a jury to convict the grieving family members and friends. We don't need to pass legislation to restrict liberties across the board just for these assholes. Not saying that's right, but I certainly wouldn't feel sorry for Phelps's gang either if that happened.

Honestly, I think this Phelps guy's traveling circus of ignorance actually helps advance the cause of tolerance. When there is a conflict caused by them rolling into town, who wants to take the side of such plainly ignorant, hateful and disgusting (not to mention ugly) people? "Traditional" types who might have been previously opposed to or uncomfortable with gay rights might rethink things when these Phelps generated conflicts arise. Consequently they become more comfortable self-categorizing with the group that supports gay rights in these instances.

[Javaman]

48. What is scary and sad about this bill is...

Nebraska is expecting more military deaths.

We live in sad times.

Out of Iraq now.

[appleannie1]

52. Although I am for

free speech, having lost a son, I can understand why they are considering this bill. At a time like that, the last thing those that are grieving need, is a bunch of nut jobs making it worse. Instead of banning them completely, perhaps they could put a distance clause in it.

[LiberalAndProud]

53. Matthew Shepherd comes to mind.

Rev Fred Phelps is Evil personified.

NO grieving family should be forced to countenance this man. This law NEEDS to pass!


God HATES Evil.

[dryan]

59. Wasn't there something on DU....

earlier this week about a funeral being disrupted. The family of the dead soldier had some other problems also I think their house burned down.

[slackmaster]

61. SEE what happens when Phelps' people protest a military funeral

The bill may do more harm than good. Sometimes it's best for people with bad ideas to be allowed to express them and suffer the consequences.

This site gave me hope. Check this out:

http://home.comcast.net/~pkos341/

ETA some of the links to subsequent pages are flaky. You may need to increment the page number in the URL manually.