Bill to Ban Protests at MILITARY Funerals?

[Rockholm]

Excuse me, but how about Congress taking this on and banning protests at ALL funerals?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/25/military.funerals.ap/index.html

[eyesroll]

1. I'm not sure if they have that right, constitutionally--

National cemeteries are under federal jurisdiction -- the rest of them aren't. I'd think it would be a state matter.

[MadHound]

2. Better yet, how about we keep the 1st amendment as intact as possible

While I deplore the actions of Phelps and his band of dysfunctional thugs, this sort of ban is a double edged sword and could very well come back and bite all of us in the ass. Phelps is pressing the envelope with this, and I actually think that he is getting the response he desires. Last week there was a military funeral here in Missouri. We've already passed a ban on protesting at military funerals, so Phelps and crew protested the night before, at the memorial service. Now people are up in arms about that, and are wanting a ban on protests at memorial services. What's next after that? Phelps protests along the motorcade routes, at the airport, etc. etc.

And each time the people will respond hysterically, and another form of protest will get banned, until one day we'll wake up and realize that our right to protest is utterly, absolutely and completely gone. No thanks, I'm not a big fan of such slippery slopes.

[wicket]

3. Free speech is free speech, even the most vile & offensive

In fact, that's usually the speech that needs the most protecting.

[MadHound]

5. Hear, hear

I hate Phelps, hate what he does, hate what he says. But I will defend his right to say it, because dammit, this is still the US, and we have the right to say what we wish, no matter how vile. When we start limiting peoples' rights to free speech, we're also limiting our own right to speak freely.

[Dunvegan]

8. Protecting the most "attacked" of free speech insures that if...

...centrist or liberal or conservative speech is ever attacked by the majority, it is protected.

Dissent saves us from becoming totalatarian.

Handing out "Common Sense" pamphlets prior to the Revolutionary War was decried, and one could have received the death sentence for said actions. Dissent is protected by the First Amemdment for a very good reason.

You cannot be just and use laws for those you don't like. (I know...that's not the current situation with the jackboots in the administration...but they are anti-Constitution.)

That is why the ACLU defends everyone's freedom of speech...including the KKK or neo-Nazis.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. Yep. If we allow them to nibble away at rights of free speech,

even when it's hate speech, we diminish the rights of all. It's like the old adage, "give them an inch and they'll take a mile".

[TygrBright]

4. You wouldn't want that.

Seriously. THINK for a minute. How would "protest" be defined? If it was defined narrowly enough to just keep batshit wackjobs like Phelps & Co out, it would be scary as shit. Do you really want CONGRESS pursuing what amounts to a personalized vendetta? No matter how deserving Phelps & Co are, what about when Congress then decides they have the power to prevent someone else-- someone you may agree with-- from exercising free speech in cemetaries while funerals are going on. (Example: Members of a peace action group with anti-war t-shirts holding a vigil at a gravesite near where a funeral is taking place?) No. You DON'T want Congress doing that.

And if it's defined too BROADLY, that way lies the police state. You show up at a funeral carrying your purse, and you have anti-government buttons attached to your purse strap. Off to the pokey with you! Heck, just having FBIs standing around looking grim would be an evil thing.

No, you DON'T want Congress going there. They can legislate in re: military funerals because that is appropriately within their jurisdiction, they represent us in our "ownership" of the military. They do NOT represent us in our private lives, which is where non-military funerals fall.

worriedly,
Bright

[abluelady]

6. This is an Outrage

Personally, I would not choose to protest at a funeral. But that is not what laws should be about. If we live in a democracy, freedom of speech is more important a law than not protesting at funerals. Why are we in Iraq again? When are Americans going to realize we are living under a dictatorship not a democracy.

[Tesha]

7. Blatantly unconstitutional. (NT)

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. Actually I agree, I read the whole article.

.
.
.

This is not a bill to hide the arriving fallen from war zones, it is a bill to stop DISRUPTORS at the actual funeral at the cemetery, which so far has not been a problem at civilian funerals

Put this in perspective then read what helped spark this bill

From the posted article:

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Wednesday hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

/snip/


Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.
_________________________________________________________________

I don't have a problem with any of this, and see no abuse of process by creating such a bill.

[MadHound]

11. So I guess you'll have no problem

When they also ban protests at the memorial services the night before the funeral. Then ban the protests at the motorcades the day before the memorial service. Then ban protests on Memorial Day. Then ban protests of anything military. I could go on and on here, each step further weakening the 1st Amendment, each step taking us further towards fascism.

Look, I hate Phelps and his merry band of assholes just as much as the next person, but stripping the entire citizenry of their right to free speech just to shut him up is wrong. First off, it isn't going to shut him up, he's in this to push the envelope and each and every ban will only bring him more face time, which is what he dearly cherishes. Secondly, this sort of limitation on free speech will sooner or later be turned on us, it is a dangerous double edged sword.

In order to preserve freedom of speech for all, one has to defend even the most vile of free speech. To make an exception for one is to lose it all.

[ConcernedCanuk]

15. Wrong - absolutely wrong "guess"

.
.
.

I THOUGHT i made it quite clear of my opinion on this,

oops

apparently not

But I'll try to make it more clear

When the body is going in the ground,

And family and friends are respecting, remembering, and grieving their lost relative/friend . .

That is NO place for protesters.

Do it at the WH

Do it at the airports/military bases

Do it at the Pig Farm

BUT LET THE FAMILIES BURY THEIR DEAD WITHOUT POLITICS!!

Feckadee

[Rockholm]

12. Free speech is all well and good.

My issue is that the government is proposing to take this on solely for the funerals of fallen soldiers. I think that is wrong. I believe that it sends a powerful message that it is OK for Phelps and his clan to protest funerals for gays but not OK to do the same at a military funeral.

[treestar]

13. Issue du jour, everything bad that happens must lead to a new law

we are so statute-happy in this country we're pathetic.

We makes laws, don't enforce them, and when people don't obey them, make more laws demanding that they obey!

Enough already! Murder has been against the law for centuries and it still happens!

[vikegirl]

14. At the state level...

31 states have introduced legislation.

Of those: AL, GA, IN, IA, KY, MD, MN, MS, MO, NE, OK, SD, TN, VA and WI have enacted bills.