A counter to the Supremes' detestable Westboro decision proposed by a Maryland Dem congressman

[Stinky The Clown]

I'm sure no politician will someone mind quoting their web site:

Ruppersberger to Announce Legislation to Prevent Protests During Military Funerals
March 7, 2011 4:46 PM

“Safe Haven for Heroes Act” Will Prevent Groups from Disrupting Military Funerals

(Timonium, MD) - Congressman C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger tomorrow will announce new legislation to prevent protests during military funerals. The bill, called the “Safe Haven for Heroes Act,” responds to the recent Supreme Court decision that offensive anti-gay protests at the funeral of Maryland resident Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder are protected under the First Amendment.

The Snyder family fell victim to Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, which believes that God hates the United States for its tolerance of gay people and frequently uses signs bearing statements such as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” Westboro has picketed nearly 600 military funerals over the past 20 years. Matthew Snyder, 20, died in a vehicle accident while serving in Iraq.

“We need to thank God for the service and sacrifice of our American military fighting for our freedom,” Congressman Ruppersberger said. “The right to free speech is a valuable liberty that we all cherish as Americans. While I respect the recent Supreme Court decision, I wanted to find a way to stop groups like Westboro from using military funerals as occasions to promote their own political agenda and inflict incalculable harm on the grieving families of our troops.”

The bill seeks to enable groups like Westboro to exercise their right to free speech without disrupting the funerals themselves or forcing funeral participants to encounter the protesters.

http://dutch.house.gov/2011/03/ruppersberger-to-announce-legislation-to-prevent-protests-during-military-funerals.shtml

The legislation essentially follows on with - of all things - bush's "free speech zones" that were found to be perfectly legal. The proposed legislation is aimed at preventing protests from taking place five hours before or after a military funeral. The bill also requires that such protests be staged 2,500 feet away from a funeral facility.

Ruppersberger said: “I believe the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of protest activities,” Ruppersberger said in a release. “This bill enables groups like Westboro to exercise their right to free speech without disrupting the funerals themselves or forcing funeral participants to encounter the protesters.”

I like this idea. I'd like to see it expanded to cover *all* funerals, not just military ones.






edit to add the word "proposed" to the title

[Morning Dew]

1. And protesting national party conventions must

take place at least 5 weeks before or after the event and must be staged 250 miles from the facility.

That should help. Wouldn't want anyone to actually hear free speech.

[Boswell]

2. agree with the anger

but not this solution...

[vi5]

3. Free speech is "detestable"?

This place goes further and further through the looking glass every day.

Abridging or censoring free speech that is not accompanied by physical violence is un-American when the right wants to do it, and it's un-American when the left wants to do it.

[speltwon]

4. agree

also, the protesters in the "detestable" case were over 1000 ft from the funeral, and the family wasn't even AWARE THEY HAD BEEN THERE until they saw the news reports that evening.

[Morning Dew]

11. Yep. The six Westboro protesters were 10 football fields away.

And,

As Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, pointed out:

The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro's picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself. A group of parishioners standing at the very spot where Westboro stood, holding signs that said "God Bless America" and "God Loves You," would not have been subjected to liability. It was what Westboro said that exposed it to tort damages.

http://voiceofoc.org/countywide/who_says_you_can_t_fight_city_hall/article_63de8466-49ed-11e0-bdc4-001cc4c002e0.html

[Kurovski]

5. I don't have the right to use your private life to promote my view on public causes

without your permission. If you are not a public figure, I don't have the go-ahead.

Or maybe the next close family member of yours who dies, I'll fit them into my political agenda, and post private information about them and you, call your choices "dumb", excoriate you and the dead, using everyone's full name so anyone using Google to research you or the dead family member will get the full force of my vitriol and lunatic ravings. You can hold that personal attack in your heart every time you recall the grief of your lost child or parent. Maybe I'll use some other personal tradgedy of yours to further my cause. Maybe I'll use them all? what's to stop me? It's free speech.

I disagree with you. I feel no one has the right to do that. And i feel The Snyders had the right to sue.

Fortunately the crazy personal attack in the Snyder case was removed from the internet by Anonymous.

So I guess everything's cool now.


One more thing: If the Snyders had a billion bucks and a team of "the Right" lawyers to plead this case, I'm going to bet they would have won. We'll watch future cases regarding free speech and say, corporations, who are people. Won't we? Sure we will.

[vi5]

8. You can.

I may not like it. It may anger me, and sure I can sue if I can find the law that fits into it.

But it's still free speech whether we support it or not.

Just like the right wing tries to turn around anyone not supporting the war or whatever to say that they are slandering the troops or whatever other bullshit.

Sorry, but as much as I detest Westboro, the first amendment doesn't give caveats or passes to speech which just makes us feel bad. And it shouldn't.

[Kurovski]

9. Well...I'll think about it.

(Everything, but not stalking you. I won't do that.) ;-)

[CommonSensePLZ]

13. Fuck them

I believe in freedom of speech, disagreement, assembly, the press and demonstration, but I don't believe they have a right to harassment because of their heterosupremacists beliefs. If the issue was race, say a white crowd complaining about blacks in the military it still wouldn't be right. They don't have any particular intellectual or philosophical problem with these individuals or their families where an actual disagreement could have occurred, and these people are NOT the ones responsible for the policies they are mad about or can do anything about the issue they're upset about; If that were the case then it's a real disagreement and anger over something a person chose and involved themselves with at their own fault, but instead they're just a bunch of hateful bullies and bigots that go trolling for anonymous victims that somewhat meet a description they're after for attention.

And how dare they call themselves a church and show so little respect for the dead, maybe some of us should protest their funerals and shout slogans about how God hates THEM. Tell those religious phonies I said let the families have their damn day of mourning and shut the hell up!

[vi5]

22. O.K. then so do you agree..

Anyone calling Bush and Cheney war criminals should be arrested and not have the right to say that? I mean after all it's harassment and slander to say such a thing. And more importantly it might make the soldiers who had to carry out their orders feel bad about themselves.

And all anti-war protests.....off the table. Don't allow them any more. Can't have the soldiers or their families possibly feeling bad about that. In fact we should probably make it treasonous.

And I suspect that when some right wing lunatic dies that we should probably make sure nobody on the internet says anything bad about them.


Also, you probably agree that the people in WI shouldn't be protesting there. It's harassing all the other people there who are trying to do their jobs. I mean they're clearly trying to bully Scott Walker and I don't see anything in the first amendment saying that it's o.k. to harass like that.

The only thing I agreed with was the part about some of us should protest THEIR funerals. That's the only reasonable, accurate, and constitutionally correct and fully American thing to do.

[CommonSensePLZ]

28. Use whatever sweeping pseudo-logical binds you want. The family deserves to have a peaceful funeral

Without being heckled by strangers and bigots. A funeral is NOT the time or place for this type of angry politicking. People have enough emotional stress at these times without them piling on just to be bullies and no one needs to reflect back to the funeral of their best friend or only child who was tortured to death in war and remember a bunch of shouts of "fags!" "queers!" "When the devil rapes you I hope his c-ck has thorns and chili sauce on it, thank him for giving your kind AIDS!" (I don't know what kind of slurs these people use, but I assume if they have the audacity to protest FUNERALS while pretending to be a Christian group and even making a website called "GodHateFags.com" it can't be pretty.)

If those jerks have a problem they ought to have the balls to demonstrate outside a military base or recruitment center and they can even use pictures of the people they're protesting against.

Nextly you did NOT read what I wrote. I said if they have a problem with someone on a level of an actual action that had occurred or might that refers to something of a person's fault, that's a disagreement and they should be allowed to protest. Example: Protesting a politician for knocking down a historic building if that was his idea - That's fair. Protesting someone because they're gay or black or a woman, that's just hate because that is not a choice the person had to make.

They can feel however they want, but sometimes wrong is wrong.

And since you're so smart an in tune with law, how do YOU distinguish free speech from bullying and harassment? Kids who get accused of being cyber-bullies, kids who haze and torment others in schools, they're just having their free speech and rights shitted all over, huh? They're the victims, not the kids who end up spending the next half their lives in psychotherapy. Since you believe in the first amendment at all costs I guess you don't have an objection to slanderous, defamatory lies being published as fact, so Fox News and tabloids must be good then! I guess since you believe in absolutism you must also think everyone should be allowed a gun per the 2nd amendment, so if I had one I should buy my 5-year-old nephew with ADHD a rifle for his birthday and tell his parents I object to their objections when they try to prevent him from using it because the 2nd amendment says any citizen has a right to bear arms!

Absolutes are ridiculous. Too much of almost anything is a bad thing. There needs to be reasonable restrictions in place to prevent abuses of power and privilege.

@Admins - Sorry if this is a bit course, but I'm just making a point.

[vi5]

29. They were 1,000 feet away.

There are laws that protect against harassment and trespassing and violence and slander. And if any of those were broken and it could be proven then I'm all for the full due course of the law to be enacted. But even a cursory reading of this case on it's most base, layperson's level shows that wasn't the case.

And yes, I do believe in the first amendment. I'm sorry you don't. And yes Fox news is protected under free speech as much as they disgust me as well. I don't get to pick and choose what gets protected and neither do you.

I noticed you didn't answer any of my examples directly? Those could all be categorized just as much as harassment as anything else. Where do we draw the line and who draws it? Apparently you think that you do. Good luck with that.

The bottom line in all of this is that Westboro Baptist is trying to rile people up. I don't believe that they believe any of this. They are looking for someone to have enough of a reaction to them that they hit them or break some law themselves. They are very calculating and very dilligent in every thing they do and don't do in terms of not breaking any law. They are looking to cash in by riling people up. And clearly it's working.

[Johonny]

21. +1

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

6. The SCOTUS decision was an affirmation of free speech

frightening that there are DUers who think it's "detestable".

[Tesha]

7. He's a fool. (NT)

[Unrepentant Fenian]

10. Keep Free Speech Free...

This is a terrible solution to the problem. I hate those idiot bastards but I don't want their free speech denied anymore than I want my own denied. It's just a disgusting thing we have to learn to live with.

[Forkboy]

12. I think they made the right decision.

[CommonSensePLZ]

14. What is needed: A distinction between "Freedom of speech" and "Harrassment"

My opinion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x589748#590575

[Hugabear]

19. Good point...sexual harrassment isn't considered "free speech"

So why should this be treated differently?

[Dappleganger]

27. That is what I think, too.

Westboro's pattern of behavior with regards to "free speech" is nothing short of harassment.

[Puregonzo1188]

15. Detestable? The Westboro case was a pretty open and shut First Amendment case.

Which is why it was an 8-1 ruling.

[Throd]

16. I don't agree with his proposal at all.

[The Wizard]

17. The right to be left alone is the beginning of all freedom

It's already settled law.
“The Right to Privacy”

Warren and Brandeis

Harvard Law Review.

Vol. IV December 15, 1890 No. 5

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY<*> .

"It could be done only on principles of private justice, moral fitness, and public convenience, which, when applied to a new subject, make common law without a precedent; much more when received and approved by usage." — Willes, J., in Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 2312

That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the new demands of society. Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the "right to life" served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, -- the right to be let alone; the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession -- intangible, as well as tangible.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

[vi5]

23. Did the Westboro church trespass on private property?

If so then they should be prosecuted under trespassing laws.

If they didn't then it didn't infringe on anyone's right to privacy.

If two parties are in a public square we don't get to tell one that they can be there simply because we like their reason more than the other.

[The Wizard]

24. If you get in my face in public

I have the right to punch you in the face. Westboro makes a good case for euthanasia. Abusing the bereaved can result in severe harm to the abusers.
You know why no one spit at me when I returned from Vietnam? Because I would have caused them more trouble than they had ever seen in their entire lives.
It's kind of like kicking a bee hive.

[vi5]

30. Were they in their faces?

Everything I've read said they were 1,000 feet away. The only way anyone could have punched them in response was to go 1,000 feet away from the funeral.

If they got up close enough to be punched they would have been violating anti-trespassing laws and could have been punished.

They are a calculating bunch of SOB's, looking to get a reaction and to cause a reaction. And it is working. The best thing anyone can do to these jerkoffs is ignore them.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. When your freedom of speech impacts my right to privacy, which shall prevail?

As a private citizen, every person in this country has the absolute right to privacy and freedom from harassment.

I have No Right whatsoever to go to your mother's funeral and tell you my political, religious, or any other views.

The intersection of absolutism and slippery slopism requires wisdom to point to the area of firm footing.

[Morning Dew]

20. In this case, the firm footing was one thousand feet away.

The protesters weren't "at" the funeral by any stretch of the imagination.

[LynneSin]

25. As 'disgusting' as that decision might seem, the Supreme Court made the right decision

For them to rule against Westboro would open a can of worms when it comes to what is protected free speech and what isn't.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand those slimey folks from Westboro but I would have been pissed if the Supreme Court ruled against the first amendment.

Hopefully more states like Maryland will create laws that will allow Westboro to protest but keep them away from funerals and other somber events.

[FBaggins]

26. Westboro's behavior is detestable. The Supreme's decision was correct.

We don't have the option of silencing speech just because it is offensive to us.