Indiana to Fred Phelps: NO PROTESTS AT FUNERALS!!!

[im10ashus]

I grew up in Indiana, that big red state in the Midwest, and had to get the hell out as soon as I could. Every now and again, they do something that actually makes sense. Telling Fred Phelps HELL NO has made that list.

A bill to restrict protests at military funerals for fallen Hoosiers has been expanded to include all burials.

Setting aside concerns about free speech rights, the Indiana Senate on Thursday passed the measure 47-1. The legislation now moves to the House, where it is expected to pass.

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, sponsored the bill after hearing about a Kansas religious sect that picketed the August funeral of Army Staff Sgt. Jeremy Doyle in Martinsville. The sect hoisted signs with slogans such as "God blew up the troops." Doyle was killed by an improvised explosive device in Iraq.

The group, Westboro Baptist Church, has protested at five other military funerals in Indiana and a total of about 80 military funerals in 30 states, saying that soldiers are dying because of the United States' tolerance for gays.

cont'd...

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060120/NEWS02/601200535

[Sydnie]

1. I wish more state would follow suit. Good for you Indidana nt

[FreedomAngel82]

10. Yes

Protesting at a funeral, whether a public person or private, is just rude and bad manners. Emotions are already flying high so someone could be so outraged at the protestor and something could happen to someone else there even if it would be an accident.

[Javaman]

19. Fred Phelps is a despicable person but...

But this phrase, scared the living shit out of me:
"Setting aside concerns about free speech rights, the Indiana Senate on Thursday passed the measure 47-1."

So we as Democrats only care about our freedom of speech when it's things we agree with?

Sorry, any limiting or censoring of our speech for what ever reason is wrong.

"I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-Voltaire

I better law would be prohibiting protests in graveyards or burial sites.

[DS1]

2. This will get deleted, but I'll keep posting it in Fred Phelps threads

He should be executed in public. Fundie style.

[Zenlitened]

22. I'm in favor of the "Phelps panic" defense.

Judge: "How do you plead to the charge of wiping out the entire Phelps family with your bare hands?"

Defendent: "Your honor, I don't deny what I did. But I was grieving, and the disgusting, horrible presence of phelps and his evil brood just set me off. I just couldn't help myself."

Judge: "Okay, that's understandable. Case dismissed, you're free to go."

[ieoeja]

35. There is precendent in Indiana.

Few years back anti-hunter advocates announced they were going to run around southern Indiana in brown clothes wearing antlers on their heads during deer hunting season. The goal was to get hunters convicted of murder.

The plan was dropped when (1) this caused a spike in the purchase of hunting licenses, and (2) area judges made a joint announcement that they would dismiss charges in any such case that came before them.

[Zenlitened]

38. There is ample precedent all over this troubled land of ours.

How many killers have walked, or seen their sentences reduced, using the "Gay/Trans/People-I-Don't-Like Panic" defense? :grr:

[DS1]

42. That's why I always carry an extra antler-hat in my car

:rofl:

[fasttense]

3. Good, invading on these people's grief is disgusting.

Funerals are not appropriate places of protest. They can protest the WH, the pentagon, the recruiters but they should not intimidate people from expressing their sorrow.

[ewoden]

7. So bad taste is the reason for infringment on free speech?

If you are out in the public, and the test might be whether a burial site is "out in the public" then it is questionable in my mind whether exercising free speeck in such a manner is violating right to privacy.

I agree it is in bad taste, but I question if that's an appropriate test of constitutionality.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. This could go in the way of protection

As in my other post here emotions are already flying high at funerals and someone like Phelps could show up and protest and a family member could get mad and do something because of high emotions. I think they should still have their free speech just to where it can protect people. Plus, what about their rights as a family to burry their loved one in peace and say goodbye? I know when my grandfather died my family wanted to be a lone with family and friends. We didn't need no bullshitter like Phelps there making things worse.

[im10ashus]

16. You always manage to find the words I can't, FreedomAngel82.

I agree. It IS a slipper slope when it comes to First Amendment rights. But this clown and his ilk have nothing but hate on their mind. It's like the KKK getting to hold rallies on the steps of our state capitals.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Actually, the KKK on the capitol steps is perfectly appropriate,

albiet disgusting. It is a public forum.

A funeral, though out "in public" is not a public forum. Cemeteries are private property and therefore protesting in a cemetery would be trespassing.

OK. Some cemeteries are owned by the municipality, and that gets iffier, but that could be resolved by a simple ordnance declaring that access is restricted to people with legitimate business, i.e., attending a funeral, visiting a relative's grave, geneological research, etc.

That doesn't affect anyone's free speech - just prohibits the excercise of that speech in this specific venue. Like noise ordinances in hospital zones.

[im10ashus]

34. I don't think "appropriate" is the word I would use.

It may be protected under the First Amendment, but it's certainly not appropriate. I remember when I lived in Indiana the GLBT people wanted to hold a Pride Rally on the steps of the Capital. This was right after the KKK held their hate-fest there on the same steps. WE were turned down. You can't call hate speech appropriate, no matter what Amendment it's protected under, IMHO. :shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. I meant that only in the sense that it is political speech (or what

passes as political speech) in a public political forum, which is explicitly protected. By the same light, the Nazis have the right to march through Skokie, but not to march into a synogogue there.

Phelps' right to protest ends at the cemetery gate.

Also, IMO, the Pride Rally should have been allowed. I hope somebody sued over that.

[ewoden]

40. I agree with no right for KKK to enter synagogue but. . .

to put this in the context of a law prohibiting an activity concerning free speech: Does the state government have the power to define speech that can't be done on private property? It seems to me that the state has the power to enforce and enact laws that protect the quiet enjoyment of private property (i.e., arrest and prosecute tresspass complaints on behalf of owners, tennants etc. for activities that violate that quiet enkoyment) but actually defining by law what kind of speech constitutes a violation ( prior to an actual complaint) is a slippery slope.

[ewoden]

26. You have the right to privacy,

but in a public place there limits beyond your person. As for keeping the peace, well there is case law to help establish when free speech crosses into inciting violence, forcible overthrow of the government, public danger (fire in a crowded theater arguments).

Make no mistake, protesting at a funeral is a pretty rude and crass behavior. However that doesn't mean it is not speech. Surely we have had similar arguments over flag burning, election to not say the Pledge of Allegiance, sitting during the National Anthem, street corner religious testimonial, etc.

I guess my take on infringements of such behavior is a personal test of "whatever goes around comes around". One day what I might construe as a free expression of my opinions might be the target and to preserve that future protection, I must judiciously consider the constitutionality of prohibitions in the present.

[msongs]

4. trampling the rights of christians again..more persecution

I mean, it's the BAPTIST church fer crud sakes, the government is squelching the rights of the most persecuted group in America AGAIN.

It would probably still be ok to protest at the funerals of glbt people if phelps would just stay away from
GI joe and jane.

sheesh.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[beyurslf]

8. You hit the nail on the head there. Phelps has protested funerals for 20

years. No one cared when he protested funerals of people that most people disliked.

[im10ashus]

11. I agree.

This should have been done a LONG time ago. :shrug:

[Solly Mack]

17. Exactly

"It would probably still be ok to protest at the funerals of glbt people if phelps would just stay away from GI joe and jane."



The hypocrisy is staggering. It's OK to shower hate - as long as the hate doesn't rain down on the funerals of soldiers.

[jonnyblitz]

25. good point. nt

[frogbison]

5. Freedom of speech is for all.

For a different point of view, read editorial at http://www.startribune.com/562/story/191181.html

An excerpt: "These vicious demonstrations have elicited a predictable but mistaken response: demands that they be outlawed. Kansas passed a law banning such protests one hour before a funeral and two hours after it ends. Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn is pushing a law requiring protesters to stay far away from such a service. He says his bill would merely uphold "the First Amendment religious rights of families to bury their dead with reverence."

Some parts of the bill do that -- make it illegal for protesters to block access to funeral parlors and churches, and restrict the sound levels of protests. But the concern is selective. The bill doesn't prohibit rock bands or motorcycles from making noise near a funeral -- only protesters. The heart of the bill is meant to circumvent the First Amendment, not uphold it."

[im10ashus]

9. Freedom of speech is one thing.

Being a complete ass when someone is trying to mourn the loss of a loved one is another.

[Javaman]

36. Being an ass in public, sadly is also freedom of speach...

it explains moron*.

[im10ashus]

45. LOL!

Sad but true. :-)

[FreedomAngel82]

13. So even if someone else might get hurt?

"Your rights end where my nose begins."

[Stephanie]

14. I think the families have a right to privacy that must be balanced

These protests are at an inappropriate time and place and infringe on the rights of the grieving families. Phelps can have all the free speech he wants - somewhere else.

[im10ashus]

18. Thanks sweetie!

I have seen his vile firsthand when I lived in Chicago. It's not pretty and it's certainly not appropriate. Not at military funerals and not at civilian funerals. It's beyond hate.

[frogbison]

21. another excerpt:

"Once we decide citizens should be free of unwanted messages in some public places, we invite censorship whenever anyone takes offense. Civil rights activists wouldn't have been permitted to jar the sensibilities of white Southerners. Antiwar demonstrators would be kept away from the Pentagon. Nazis wouldn't have been allowed to march in Skokie, Ill.

It's no justification to say Phelps could exercise his right to protest at other places and times. Part of the right to free speech is the right to decide when and where to speak. I think his message is wrong. But if it were right, who would need to hear it more than those mourning a soldier's death?"

Link (again): http://www.startribune.com/562/story/191181.html

[Stephanie]

32. Okay. So what if he wants to protest in my bathroom?

Is my bathroom just as available to him as my funeral chapel?

[ewoden]

44. Nope it is not

You have the full protection of the law in determining what constitutes the quiet enjoyment of your bathroom. You simply call the authorities to have him removed from yopur John and they will arrest and, if you file a complaint, charge the perp with trespassing. key here is that it is private property. If a cemetary is private property, owners, tennants, certain users can make same complaints and get same action. There is no need for a law to govern acceptable speech on private property, and scuh a law is open to legal challenge on public property.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Exactly. I would have had a fit if Phelps had turned up at my mom's

funeral and I guarantee there would have been a show-down. I don't think my family would have put up with his junk.

[Zenlitened]

6. Funny, the Official Outrage at phelps seemed much less intense...

... back in the days when he was "merely" assaulting gays and lesbians.

"That's between Rev. Phelps and the Lord" was a common refrain, when he and his sick little brood were harassing the Shepard family.

:grr:

[MadHound]

15. While I despise Phelps and all of his little cult and what they stand for

I cannot condone such infringment of free speech. If for no other reason that it will be laws like this that will be expanded on and used against ALL of us. It is a slippery slope we will be going down, and we won't like what we find at the bottom.

Freedom of speech means freedom for people to say what we think is vile and disgusting. This has been upheld in the courts and the law for years and decades, from Neo-Nazis marching through predominantly Jewish neighborhoods to the Klan marching through African American neighborhoods.

If you don't wish to see free speech and your right to protest start slipping down the drain, you must oppose this infringment on the right to speak freely.

[LincolnMcGrath]

23. Well Said MH

[im10ashus]

24. I understand what you are saying.

But isn't there a fine line? Shouldn't he NOT be allowed on cemetery and funeral home property during those funerals? I know what freedom of speech is and would go to my grave protecting it. I have seen his hate first-hand and it was nauseating.

[MadHound]

29. No, he shouldn't be allowed on cemetary or funeral home property

But, since these places are generally private property, we already have a law to take care of that, it is called trespassing. If he sets foot on funeral home ground, bust him. But like it or not, if he is on public land, he has the right to be there, disgusting as he is.

[im10ashus]

30. It is definitely a slipper slope.

They arrest Cindy Sheehand for protesting outside the White House but they can't arrest this jerk. There HAS to be an alternative.

[ewoden]

41. I believe Cindy was arrested for not having appropriate documentation for

her protest. O bel;ieve her organizers knoew that goin in. I must confess the case is not that familiar to me and I do not know the case law regarding any claims on the constitutionality concerning the need for permits for demonstrations.

[Poll_Blind]

39. Well-said and agreed with, MadHound! n/t

PB

[madinmaryland]

20. What is the point of the guy's protests?

He only seems to be showing the he is a complete moran totally out of touch with reality. Sounds like he is cruising for a good whuppin!

As for the free speech angle, i think he would be allowed to say anything he wants on public property (however repulsive), but not on private property (is a cemetary on a church's property considered private - that could be considered trespassing).

[BiggJawn]

28. Wouldn't need a law like that if Phelps would just have...

...an "accident"...

All that traveling him and his tribe does, they just HAVE to get into it with a meth-soaked "Knight of the Open Road" SOME day!

This will set some kind of precedence that won't hurt Phelps, but will erode our Freedom in SOME way, just you wait. I got a bad feeling about this.

The "House of Bubbas" can't leave well enough alone, watch them get into a fight w/somebody trying to include Women's Clinics in the bill.

[Zambero]

31. O.K., so Phelps has been banned from Indiana's military funerals.

Bush isn't however. He could choose to attend the funeral of a fallen troop in any state, but has not availed himself on a single occasion. Could it be that he might have a problem looking a grieving parent straight in the eye? Or does he fear that other Cindy Sheehan types could surface at those solemn events, speak their mind, and put him in a very awkward situation? Would it cut into his vacation time? Or does he just not give a rats ass? My guess is all of the above.

[OneTwentyoNine]

43. Why would it be restriced ONLY to those in the Military?

Phelps and his nut-cases also protest ALL funerals of a person who died of AIDS--they just all had to be screaming faggots right??

Why would it be OK for Phelps to keep protesting those funerals but not the ones of military personel? We're all Americans,not just the ones in uniform.

[Sequoia]

46. Great news this week for Indiana.

This and the daylight saving time!