Iowa lawmaker pushes measure on flag desecration at military funerals!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And as already stated in the OP and the reply to the post you're talking about...

How does harrassing funeral goers count as "peaceful assembly"???
How is it not an "obscenity"?

Clearly that's not the case...

& as such there is no protections for such being guarunteed.



Your thoughts!

I know that this is really directed at those abominable homophobic jerks at Westboro Baptist Church, and thus I understand where the politician in question is coming from. Those people are indeed disgusting.

OTOH, we need to tolerate some bad behavior in order to have a free society. Like we need to tolerate some dog # in the yard because of the overall protection the guard dog gives us outweighs the inconvenience of the dog # just like we need to tolerate some bad behavior because the value of the freedom of speech outweighs the bad behavior of some individuals.

OTOH yet again, I disagree with WBC being protected from CIVIL lawsuits like they have been in the past. One person suing another and winning in civil court has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
You opinion doesn't matter. Not in the case of freedom of assembly. The mourners feelings don't come into play either. Now if the Baptists were masturbating on the flag in public at a funeral or just on main street that is considered obscene not because they're messing up the flag but for public nudity or public sexual behavior. If someone wanted to masturbate on the flag in private...well...that's their prerogative. They have a right to express that...ya know, if they want to...
A reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Peaceable assembly.

From 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

One could argue that taunting, swearing at, waving signs that say awful things about another private citizen is neither political protest nor peaceable assembly, but rather harassment and intimidation.

Lol the witch burning spoke to the wiccan coven meeting. And that was just an example of an assembly that say a Christian might object to. But the law protects the wiccan
just like it protects westboro.
A reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Let's take this protest to another location to clarify what the law means.
The new location is in front of a free clinic that offers abortions. There are groups of people who are nice as can be in their daily lives who get down right nasty in their pro-life protests but still they are entitled to that assembly and as long as there are no physical violent acts it's perfectly legal. Do they care if they hurt the feelings of the women going in? Women who are making a heart wrenching decision have to endure the name calling. Because those doing it have a right to.



A reply to: NavyDoc

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Yes but in all fairness stopping the likes of WBC from harrassing funeral goers is not at all going to lead to WBC members being burned at the stake...


It'll just teach them that their "protests" will need to be conducted in a more suitable area.



This is England, for example;
“There is a line in the sand between freedom of speech and the right to use hate speech. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you that right. We live in a democracy and we believe in free speech. People will now quote Voltaire but he never had the benefit of going to the gates of Auschwitz and seeing where unfettered free speech ends up.”


So while you say that it could lead to people being burned at the stake if we start silencing them...

We say giving them the chance to spread hatred and propaganda leads to another form of genocide...



& I'm guessing, somewhere in the middle, lies the solution.



Do you not have a breach of the peace laws in the States?

Or does your current definition of freedom of speech nullify such?

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Lol the witch burning spoke to the wiccan coven meeting. And that was just an example of an assembly that say a Christian might object to. But the law protects the wiccan
just like it protects westboro.
A reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Did the coven in question harass fellow citizens? Call them names? Threaten them? Probably not and therein lies the difference, IMHO.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Let's take this protest to another location to clarify what the law means.
The new location is in front of a free clinic that offers abortions. There are groups of people who are nice as can be in their daily lives who get down right nasty in their pro-life protests but still they are entitled to that assembly and as long as there are no physical violent acts it's perfectly legal. Do they care if they hurt the feelings of the women going in? Women who are making a heart wrenching decision have to endure the name calling. Because those doing it have a right to.



A reply to: NavyDoc

I disagree with those too. If they quietly stand on the public sidewalk, then sure, they have the right to protest. If they block entry, spit at, curse, intimidate, scream at, or otherwise harass their fellow citizens, then that is neither protest nor peaceable assembly--it is harassment.

The right to protest does not include harassment and slander of your fellow citizens.

Ah but see to the members of westboro this is a moral issue. a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

This is at a state level anyway. There is no move to challenge the federal constitution and I'm unfamiliar with Iowa's state constitution.




a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

All it would require is for someone to file a brief and a Federal judge could overturn it based on previous precedent.

No of course not but making exceptions of the first amendment to accommodate the "feelings" of some could, if allowed to proceed lead to witch burnings. Stop the coven meeting because Christians don't like it, not actually burning witches at the stake but preventing their free right to assemble. Trust me here in the bible belt my religion is not well tolerated and there are many who would prevent my practicing it if they could. They take that passage about not suffering a witch to live very seriously.
But we don't make exceptions and if we ever do it goes through a rigorous legal process to ensure the rights of all the people.

reply to: CharlieSpeirs

There it is again. Opinion. There are many Christians who's opinion is that witchcraft is devil worship. They would and do feel threatened by the practices of any pagan. They would gladly protest a coven meeting on that belief alone. And they could it's there right just as its the right of the witches to assemble. However they cannot go into a court and say your honor I think witches worship the devil and therefore seek to have their right to assemble denied.

a reply to: NavyDoc

But that's not the same thing. The freedom of speech and assembly protect one from the actions of government and protect protest against the government--they do not enable you to harass your fellow citizens. They do not enable you to slander your fellow citizens.

If the coven is following you around and harassing you, you certainly do have cause for redress.
If the coven is doing their own thing on their own property and not bothering anyone, then you don't have the right to complain, no matter how badly you feel about it.

It is the actions against their fellow citizens that makes the difference between free speech and harassment.

Those ideas are not just "opinion" they were accepted parts of the law until recently when some courts have decided that everyone is a special little snowflake.

Blocking entry and spitting on would be considered acts of violence and would not be tolerated but calling these women murderers or godless is the same as Westboro calling a gay person a fag. It's not nice but there's not doodly squat we can do about it except maybe shout louder.

reply to: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: AinElohim

Well that's my thinking too...

Outside that barrier you're not interfering with a private event and you get to protest...



Next funeral of a president I urge the people who are advocating "freedom" here to go and do the same...

I bet you don't even get access to the funeral.
Let alone the chance to harass people and disturb it.


imo.

yes hardcore sprayed... I'm talking sticky foam pepper sprayed.



we're not dealing with common sense or decency when it comes to Westboro or libtard eco-terrorist.

logic dictates sticky spray...

Lol our disturbing the peace laws seem to center around neighbors complaining of barking dogs or loud parties they themselves were not invited to.
reply to: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: GV1997

While I do not condone buring the flag it is protected as free speech.

Freedom of speech means accepting both what you agree with and what you do not.

Fair enough if done in the right place.


But a funeral?

I think that would fall under the obscenity clause as that is pretty....well.....offensive.

Agree with a war or not. funerals are not the place to harass anyone.

Im pretty open with free speech.

But I think harassment at funnels is a case of ones freedom of free speech encroaching one ones right to privacy.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Edit: This is about flag burning at funerals...

Not flag burning in general.

As already mentioned, flag burning is protected and that it is at a funeral does not prevent this from happening.

We allow neo-Nazis to march with their flags and make racist comments, this is part of having a First Amendment.

But were does ones right for privacy begun?


A American has the right to burn a flag yes.

But they dont have the right to do it on your front lawn as that infringes on both your right to privacy and property.

I would say to do it at a funeral encroaches on ones right to privacy as a funeral should be a private affair.


Its a sensitive subject that's for sure.

originally posted by: crazyewok
I would say to do it at a funeral encroaches on ones right to privacy as a funeral should be a private affair.

If they are doing it from a public thoroughfare they most certainly do as ruled on by the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Let's take this protest to another location to clarify what the law means.
The new location is in front of a free clinic that offers abortions. There are groups of people who are nice as can be in their daily lives who get down right nasty in their pro-life protests but still they are entitled to that assembly and as long as there are no physical violent acts it's perfectly legal. Do they care if they hurt the feelings of the women going in? Women who are making a heart wrenching decision have to endure the name calling. Because those doing it have a right to.



A reply to: NavyDoc

I disagree with those too. If they quietly stand on the public sidewalk, then sure, they have the right to protest. If they block entry, spit at, curse, intimidate, scream at, or otherwise harass their fellow citizens, then that is neither protest nor peaceable assembly--it is harassment.

The right to protest does not include harassment and slander of your fellow citizens.

I think we are in agreement.

There is peaceful protest and there is harassment.

And to me harassment encroaches on ones right to privacy.