First Amendment Rights: Constitutional Dilemma Before The Supreme Court

[Hot Mega]

Did I say anything about going inside? No. It'd be the typical outside the building protest. Jeez.

Typical you. Quoting just to quote.

Just because I used your quote does't mean I was only addressing the example you suggest. "Go up to their church" could mean to some go inside...just like "go to" could mean that as well.

Even though, you would still be disturbing the peace. You don't have a right to do that either.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Now you're singing a different tune. You're just fine with them protesting a dead solider right in front of the family during the funeral. I mention going to their church and protest them and you say it is disturbing the peace.

Way to show your true self.

 

[wolverine83]

If it were my son or daughter's death, I would have the right to kick the ever-living dogshit out of all of them. Why? When you buy a burial lot in a burial ground you are buying your own private property. That property is yours and your family and the other property is the private property of others. By private property rights, I should be able to discharge anyone from my private property by force if necessary.
The linear thoughts of this church are disgusting and immoral. As a former minister, they have taken verses in the Bible and have turned them into corrupted vileness and have invoked hatred and violence in people. Yes, religion is meant to divide all human beings, but it is meant more as a personal choice rather than causing war and hatred. Religion has caused more wars and violence than any other thing on the planet.
If the Supreme Court has any sense, it will allow the church to protest off the burying ground sites and out of interference of traffic. It will allow the families to grieve in their own time and space and it will save them from having to deal with this idiotic people who don't even read the book that the supposedly preach from.

 

[Hot Mega]

Now you're singing a different tune. You're just fine with them protesting a dead solider right in front of the family during the funeral. I mention going to their church and protest them and you say it is disturbing the peace.

Way to show your true self.

Show your "true self" and read what I wrote again ~~whim p lease.

What would most likely happen is you would be removed for trespassing among other things.

You don't have a right to go on or in someone else's private property to protest and you don't have a right to disturb the peace.:2 cents:

If you wanted to get permitted to stand outside somewhere on public property and peaceably protest then that is within your constitutional rights.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

You make it pretty clear if someone is going to be protesting at a a dead soldier's funeral you will come up with whatever you can to justify their act. If it is something you don't like you will come up with whatever you can to make it look bad.

 

[Hot Mega]

Shouldn't be a dilemma. As long as they're peaceable, properly permitted and not trespassing there are no grounds to impede their right to assemble IMO.

But if they become disruptive local authorities ought to be able to ask them to voluntarily leave under threat of arrest.

As long as they are permitted, peaceable, not trespassing they have the constitutional right to stand with whatever signs they want anywhere...no different from the folks in Jags sig.:2 cents:

What would most likely happen is you would be removed for trespassing among other things.

You don't have a right to go on or in someone else's private property to protest and you don't have a right to disturb the peace.:2 cents:

If you wanted to get permitted to stand outside somewhere on public property and peaceably protest then that is within your constitutional rights.

You make it pretty clear if someone is going to be protesting at a a dead soldier's funeral you will come up with whatever you can to justify their act. If it is something you don't like you will come up with whatever you can to make it look bad.

Where is the daylight between any of those statements? I'll wait...

 

[~~whimsy~~]

I don't have to explain anything. You do it to yourself with what you write down on here. And what majority of rest of the board knows about you as well.

 

[ChefChiTown]

The Justices offer some debatable hypothetic situations but in this particular case where the protesters were simply holding signs and 1000 feet away after having obtained permission...they were within their constitutional rights.

Permit or not, there is nothing in the Constitution that clearly gives anybody the right to interrupt and interfere with a person's private funeral or burial service.

It's all based off of loose (VERY loose) interpretations of what the Constitution actually says. So, what does the Constitution actually say? The Constitution (well, the Bill of Rights, specifically) gives us freedom of speech, which is defined, according to the Bill of Rights itself, as...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

Where does it say anything about picketing with anti-gay messages while standing outside of a dead soldier's funeral? Where does it say anything about holding a sign that says "GOD HATES FAGS" at a gay person's funeral service? Where exactly in any legal document that was created during the foundation of this country does it say that people have the right to do that?

:dunno:

Disrespect and despicable acts can still be done peaceably.:2 cents:

Explain to me how standing outside of a gay person's funeral, holding a sign that says "GOD HATES FAGS", where all of the gay person's friends, family and loved ones can see it, is a PEACEFUL action? That's like walking up to a black man and calling him a ******, then complaining after he punches your lights out that you were just exercising your freedom of speech.

"Excuse me, ma'am, no disrespect, but...your son is fudge packing homo. His cock sucking faggot ass is burning in hell right now and I'm glad he's dead."
"Excuse me? WHAT did you say? My son is DEAD, you asshole!!!"
"I know. I'm just exercising my freedom of speech though. You know, one of the rights that your son fought and died for? So, I'm not doing anything wrong. The Bill of Rights says that I'm allowed to do this. So, once again, I'm glad your dick smoking faggot ass of a son is dead...and so is God."
"Aww, bless your heart. You're exactly right. How wrong of me to be upset by your comments. I thank you for your opinion. I'm glad my son died to preserve your freedom of speech. I'm glad you could come."

It doesn't work like that. You don't walk up to a black man and call him a "******" without expecting to get punched in the face, just like you don't walk up to a gay person's funeral with a sign that says "GOD HATES FAGS" without expecting retaliation.

And, if you are expecting negative retaliation, then you know ahead of time that what you are doing is wrong. And, if you know it's wrong, then you shouldn't do it.

Read this response to a Baltimore Sun article, written by one of the paper's readers.

The editorial about the Westboro Baptist Church's protest at a soldier's funeral ("Hateful, but not illegal," Oct. 7) entirely misses the point. Of course the speech is hateful. Of course it is not illegal. It seems to me that this is not so much a free speech case as it is a gate crashing case. People holding a funeral have their own rights: freedom of assembly, freedom of association, privacy. What is more private and personal than a funeral?

And there is the issue of public order. There is a long history of local authorities separating groups exercising their otherwise perfectly legal right of assembly in order to avoid a public disturbance. If Group A obtains a parade permit for a march at a given place and time, opposing Group B cannot just show up and expect to parade at the same place and time. Why would the same not apply to a funeral, or a wedding, or even a picnic?

When a funeral is arranged, the cemetery has been paid for the use of the property. And the family holding the funeral should have the full right of privacy that they would have in their church or in the funeral home. These hateful, sad and bitter people from Westboro Baptist have a right to their opinions. They have a right to make fools of themselves expressing those views in public. They may even have a right to express those views at the cemetery. But they do not have the right to be at, or near enough to the cemetery, to be a disturbance, the same day and time as the funeral. It defies common sense.

If the private functions of people and families were widely disrupted in this fashion by anyone who disagreed with some aspect of their lives, the public outcry and the potential for civil disorder would quickly decide the issue for the courts.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/op...neral-protest-letter-20101007,0,5632535.story

 

[Hot Mega]

Permit or not, there is nothing in the Constitution that clearly gives anybody the right to interrupt and interfere with a person's private funeral or burial service.

It's all based off of loose (VERY loose) interpretations of what the Constitution actually says. So, what does the Constitution actually say? The Constitution (well, the Bill of Rights, specifically) gives us freedom of speech, which is defined, according to the Bill of Rights itself, as...



http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

Where does it say anything about picketing with anti-gay messages while standing outside of a dead soldier's funeral? Where does it say anything about holding a sign that says "GOD HATES FAGS" at a gay person's funeral service? Where exactly in any legal document that was created during the foundation of this country does it say that people have the right to do that?

:dunno:



Explain to me how standing outside of a gay person's funeral, holding a sign that says "GOD HATES FAGS", where all of the gay person's friends, family and loved ones can see it, is a PEACEFUL action? That's like walking up to a black man and calling him a ******, then complaining after he punches your lights out that you were just exercising your freedom of speech.

"Excuse me, ma'am, no disrespect, but...your son is fudge packing homo. His cock sucking faggot ass is burning in hell right now and I'm glad he's dead."
"Excuse me? WHAT did you say? My son is DEAD, you asshole!!!"
"I know. I'm just exercising my freedom of speech though. You know, one of the rights that your son fought and died for? So, I'm not doing anything wrong. The Bill of Rights says that I'm allowed to do this. So, once again, I'm glad your dick smoking faggot ass of a son is dead...and so is God."
"Aww, bless your heart. You're exactly right. How wrong of me to be upset by your comments. I thank you for your opinion. I'm glad my son died to preserve your freedom of speech. I'm glad you could come."

It doesn't work like that. You don't walk up to a black man and call him a "******" without expecting to get punched in the face, just like you don't walk up to a gay person's funeral with a sign that says "GOD HATES FAGS" without expecting retaliation.

And, if you are expecting negative retaliation, then you know ahead of time that what you are doing is wrong. And, if you know it's wrong, then you shouldn't do it.

Read this response to a Baltimore Sun article, written by one of the paper's readers.



http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/op...neral-protest-letter-20101007,0,5632535.story

The text of the first amendment;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If they were interrupting you might have a point but standing 1000 yards away with signs means they're no more interrupting their service than another funeral being held 20 feet away.

Is it disrespectful and reprehensible? Yes IMO...but in a country where people have the right to express themselves how they see fit (as long as they're not libelous or slanderous) and assemble peaceably where permitted...they have the right to be disrespectful and reprehensible.

Got it??

 

[Hot Mega]

I don't have to explain anything. You do it to yourself with what you write down on here. And what majority of rest of the board knows about you as well.

Okay cryptic keeper...I suppose that was a, "I can't".

Way to respond on point to the challenge.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

No. I'm not going to repeat myself and have to continuously explain when all you have to do is read both of our posts in order.

 

[Hot Mega]

There is no excuse for this action. These people will most likely be shut down within the year. What people should do is go up to their church while in service and just start making a bunch of ruckus in form of protest and remind them it is freedom of speech. Play the most loudest pro-American music, have signs saying protest this church, and see how they like it. If they say anything remind them:

Now imagine if you were trying to pay respects to a dead family, loved, one.

These folks no nothing about the bible and need to go away.

No. I'm not going to repeat myself and have to continuously explain when all you have to do is read both of our posts in order.

If you do what you called for in the above post, you are most likely going to be asked to leave not matter who you are or what you're protesting. Freedom speech/expression allows only for the peaceable expression of your thoughts...not to disturb the peace.

You can't respond to what I've asked because nothing I have stated deviates from the fact that people have the right to peaceably assemble and protest where permitted.

So...don't repeat yourself:dunno:...not sure what you could repeat anyway..you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

All they would have to do is just turn the music down and continue on with their protest.

Continuously protest outside the church every time they go there. Heck. Bring the local news. I'm sure they would enjoy to be the first to get the footage before it hits the nation.

 

[Hot Mega]

All they would have to do is just turn the music down and continue on with their protest.

Continuously protest outside the church every time they go there. Heck. Bring the local news. I'm sure they would enjoy to be the first to get the footage before it hits the nation.

That's fine as long as either group's actions fall within what is considered peaceable demonstrations where they are permitted to assemble.:2 cents:

 

[Supafly]

These people need to get shot down like the crazy fuck-ups they are.

 

[jjo_is4]

This legal case is currently before the US Supreme Court. Nutshell version....a baptist church (Westboro Baptist Church run by Rev. Fred Phelps) in Topeka, Kansas is staging loud and disruptive protests at the funerals of American servicemen killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan under the premise that America is cursed and asserting that it is a good thing that soldiers are being killed because we (the USA in general I suppose by their reckoning) tolerate homosexuality and their deaths are proof that God is wreaking vengeance on us as a result. They recently staged a protest heckling the funeral service for Lance Corporal Mathew Snyder who had been killed in action in Afghanistan. The family of Corporal Snyder sued the church and won but the decision was overturned on appeal. The case is now before the Supreme Court.



I would assert that, no matter how disgusting and vile the actions of this church are, their right to assemble and protest are perfectly in accordance with the tenets of the first amendment to the US Constitution. I have tremendous empathy for Corporal Snyder's family and I disagree 100% with the beliefs of this lunatic church and its adherents. However, strictly from a legal standpoint, they can express themselves in any manner they wish and their rights to do so are protected by law in my opinion.

Opinions? Do you think a law protecting the privacy of the grieving family should be enacted by Congress to prevent this type of thing in the future?

Link is here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supr...ary-funerals-members/story?id=11812444&page=2

Once again I agree with you. :hatsoff:

But I think too much freedom is sometimes as bad a Censorship. In my opinion this is a "perfect" example of why I believe it would be a good idea to make some changes to your first amendment. :2 cents: from London.

 

[ChefChiTown]

The text of the first amendment;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If they were interrupting you might have a point but standing 1000 yards away with signs means they're no more interrupting their service than another funeral being held 20 feet away.

Is it disrespectful and reprehensible? Yes IMO...but in a country where people have the right to express themselves how they see fit (as long as they're not libelous or slanderous) and assemble peaceably where permitted...they have the right to be disrespectful and reprehensible.

Got it??

You are doing exactly what I am stating that everybody else is doing - interpreting the words of the Constitution/Bill of Rights in such a manner that supports their own argument. So, allow me to play lawyer for a second and do the same thing myself to win the argument for the other side...

By definition, the Bill of Rights does NOT give anybody the right to picket outside of a gay man's funeral with signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS". Those exact words and/or description is not located in any legal document recognized by the United States' lawmakers. The exact words of the Bill of Rights, First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere is the right to picket outside of a gay person's funeral with an anti-gay agenda listed in the Bill of Rights.

However, by definition, the Bill of Rights does give people the right to protest and peacefully assemble. Key word: PEACEFULLY.

By definition, according to the law, a protest or assembly which is peaceful is one that is "untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion" - "devoid of violence or force."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peaceful

By definition, according to the law, conflict is "competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons", to agitate is "to stir up public discussion of" and/or "to attempt to arouse public feeling", and commotion is "a condition of civil unrest or insurrection" or "mental excitement or confusion" or "an agitated disturbance."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agitate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commotion

Compare those DEFINITIONS and avoid any personal interpretations and you will see that people do NOT have the right to protest with an anti-gay agent at a gay person's funeral, because the result does not fit the definition of "peaceful" - in fact, it fits the definition of the complete opposite.

Protesting a gay man's funeral with signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" fits the definition of conflict - competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons - which means that it does not fit the definition of peaceful, as a peaceful situation is one that is void of conflict.

Protesting a gay man's funeral with signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" and creating a national conversation/argument that involves heated, emotional discussion fits the definition of agitate - to stir up public discussion of" and/or "to attempt to arouse public feeling - which means that it does not fit the definition of peaceful, as a peaceful situation is one that is void of agitation.

Protesting a gay man's funeral with signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" and arousing a nationwide flood of outrage fits the definition of commotion - a condition of civil unrest or insurrection" or "mental excitement or confusion" or "an agitated disturbance - which means that it does not fit the definition of peaceful, as a peaceful situation is one that is void of commotion.

Protesting outside of a gay person's funeral with anti-gay signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" - peaceful? I think not.

:dunno:

 

[Hot Mega]

You are doing exactly what I am stating that everybody else is doing - interpreting the words of the Constitution/Bill of Rights in such a manner that supports their own argument. So, allow me to play lawyer for a second and do the same thing myself to win the argument for the other side...

By definition, the Bill of Rights does NOT give anybody the right to picket outside of a gay man's funeral with signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS". Those exact words and/or description is not located in any legal document recognized by the United States' lawmakers. The exact words of the Bill of Rights, First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere is the right to picket outside of a gay person's funeral with an anti-gay agenda listed in the Bill of Rights.

However, by definition, the Bill of Rights does give people the right to protest and peacefully assemble. Key word: PEACEFULLY.

By definition, according to the law, a protest or assembly which is peaceful is one that is "untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion" - "devoid of violence or force."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peaceful

By definition, according to the law, conflict is "competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons", to agitate is "to stir up public discussion of" and/or "to attempt to arouse public feeling", and commotion is "a condition of civil unrest or insurrection" or "mental excitement or confusion" or "an agitated disturbance."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agitate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commotion

Compare those DEFINITIONS and avoid any personal interpretations and you will see that people do NOT have the right to protest with an anti-gay agent at a gay person's funeral, because the result does not fit the definition of "peaceful" - in fact, it fits the definition of the complete opposite.

Protesting a gay man's funeral with signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" fits the definition of conflict - competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons - which means that it does not fit the definition of peaceful, as a peaceful situation is one that is void of conflict.

Protesting a gay man's funeral with signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" and creating a national conversation/argument that involves heated, emotional discussion fits the definition of agitate - to stir up public discussion of" and/or "to attempt to arouse public feeling - which means that it does not fit the definition of peaceful, as a peaceful situation is one that is void of agitation.

Protesting a gay man's funeral with signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" and arousing a nationwide flood of outrage fits the definition of commotion - a condition of civil unrest or insurrection" or "mental excitement or confusion" or "an agitated disturbance - which means that it does not fit the definition of peaceful, as a peaceful situation is one that is void of commotion.

Protesting outside of a gay person's funeral with anti-gay signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" - peaceful? I think not.

:dunno:

Precedence and case law doesn't support anything you said in the above. Also, Merriam-Webster's definition of peaceful is not the legal standard.

Why do you think for example supremacists groups rightfully are allowed to assemble and say/exhibit all kinds of things derisive of those they are protesting??

What you think is a matter of interpretation has already been dealt with in the courts and answered. It's virtually settled law and the only question created by this case is the reverence of a funeral and the emotion of the circumstances.

Are there actions reprehensible? Yes. Are they violating someone else's rights? No..IMO.

 

[pete rose]

By all means, let them have their signs. Not only is it entertaining, but it's also the spirit of freedom.

 

[Supafly]

... and yet the solution could be so easy.

They want to fuck up the army, the army can solve this situation before lunch break.

Second scenario: They hate on the USA like the country rolls, kick them out.

As I understand there is a lot of space in Argentina where they can build a farm and do something worthy with their hands. Plus that old creep can finally fuck all his little boys.