Congress passes funeral protest ban.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
so why make these laws?

That is something we don't know. We weren't there when the lawmakers
were debating. We don't know what they were afraid of and why they
decided this was necessary. I don't know how to answer your question.

I understand you being suspicious of politicians. Really.
They haven't earned our trust, have they?

an issue of making laws based on morality rather then
our countries freedoms and rights.

Aren't all our freedoms and rights based, at least in some part, on morality?
It's the moral thing to do - not murder.
It's the moral thing to do - not lie in court.
It's the moral thing to do - not steal.
It's the moral thing to do - not have slaves.
It's the moral thing to do - not interfere with a person's religious freedom.

It's our country's law - not to murder.
It's our country's law - not to lie in court.
It's our country's law - not to steal.
It's our country's law - not to have slaves.
It's our country's law - not to interfere with a person's religious freedom.

actually in truth it has nothing to do with freedom of religion. The freedom of religion comes garenteed actually. The laws protect you from being made to feel uncomfortable to the point of becoming violent and out of control. Thats where you would call the police. Whether it be because of some one bashing you for your religion or for politics, if some one is harrassing you to the point of either calling the comes or physically lashing out, these laws protect you.

Its not so much about religion, because religion is a part of the person being offended.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
We are talking about them stepping on the rights of 'freedom of religion'.

You are, I'm not.

So at this point that's all that has been brought up .. making sure that
people are allowed to practice their faith.

While that is important (as important as Freedom of Speech) I can't see using freedom of religion as a justification to ban funeral protesters, simply because all funerals aren't religious. I'm sure you know what I mean, and I know what you mean, we're just both so stubborn.

It's just that when the protests interfere with someone's religion .. then it's
an issue that goes to the heart of the religious freedoms garunteed by our
founding fathers and the documents that I already posted.

Agreed. But that leaves the non-religious ceremonies open to Phelps and his poop-spewers.

Let's use nuisance laws or privacy laws or disturbing the peace laws already on the books to kick this guy to the curb instead of messing with protest rights. That's just my preference.

believe it or not flyers fan, I thought about it for awhile and realised the laws werent made based on morals. They were made because the actions conflicted with peoples rights. Murder takes away a persons right to life, so you cannot murder. Rape takes away im sure a number of rights like the pursuit of happiness and among others that because I cant relate to I may not know. Stealing infringes on another persons right to live because if things get stolen they cant make ends meet and they cant live life.
Lying in court interferes with the right of a FAIR and speedy trial.

Things trace back to an action which will restrict the victim from having the garenteed rights they are given under the US freedoms.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Im against it because its illogical and suspicious. Im against it because neither is necessarily restricting free speech, but people are failing to see they are starting to make laws based on morals. When you do this certain people start to be discriminated against. You have to make laws based on the freedoms that people were garenteed as US citizens. We already have such laws, so why make these laws?

It is a slippery slope, not only because of a possible freedom of speech issue, but an issue of making laws based on morality rather then our countries freedoms and rights.

Grim....have you even read the law?

because obviously you havent read what I said. I said that theres a difference between making a law because you think its wrong to do that and making a law because it interferes with other peoples liberties.

I dont get it, you want to fight me even though I said that it was really about a restriction of liberties. That it was more so about why this law is being created. Its not a law acting on when people are feeling uncomfortable to the point of physical violence but because they think its wrong.

TJW im not sure why, but you just like to fight everything I say even if it really doesnt have anything to do with what your talking about. Im saying this law is being made because people think protesting at a funeral is wrong. It should be that disturbing the peace law, that is already in place, and has been, just be enforced. This way its not about whether its right or wrong to protest a funeral but that your infringing on people trying to live.

o and no these laws arent stating the same thing at all. Its completely different then any other laws. its making laws based on whats right and wrong rather then what interferes with peoples rights to be a free citizen. These protestors are infringing on peoples rights, and there are laws to combat this. We do NOT need a new law to address this. If its not being enforced then I think we have a much bigger problem then just these funerals.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
People need to really read what grim and The Vagabond are saying here. If the Powers That Be really wanted to stop these protesters, there are already LAWS on the books to do that. If they would enforce the existing laws, this church could be fined, arrested, whatever.

These laws were not started by these mythical "Powers that Be," they were started by the families who had funerals protested.

There were no existing laws - that was the problem - you cannot throw a nuisance law against protesters because lets face it all protesters are a nuisance of some kind. If it was that easy there would be no protesting of any kind.

These groups hide behind two laws, the right to protest on public grounds which lets them stand in a cemetery and the right to religion which lets them say just about any horrible thing they want to say. They have been doing this for 10 years. They know the laws and so do the cities. If they would be arrested they would get a really nice court settlement from the city for having their right violated.

AGAIN, If these protesters want to tell us all how gay people are taking over the world or protest the war and the soldiers that is fine, they can do it on a downtown street or in front of the courthouse like everyone else. There is no need for them to be in a graveyard when a funeral is taking place. Protest laws are great because they allow Americans to voice their opinions in a constructive manner for the betterment of the community. These protesters are not protesting anything. These protesters are exploiting loopholes in the laws to personally attack grieving families.

They are not protesting. They are attacking grieving families and hiding behind the laws to do it.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by zerotime]

well techincally, the police cant report to a disturbing the peace call, or anything unless its reported at the time its happening. The cops cant show up and say you cant do this unless people at the funeral are complaining and feeling uncomfortable. Allowing it to continue, when its being reported, is a failure on the job of the local police department. Its not that these laws cant stop them, its that its too much of a hassle to go to court over it. thats the problem. its not seen as a big deal because its not worth the effort to the police to possibly arrest them if they dont obey, then have to do the entire process.

I guess it wont be til someone at the funeral kills one of them and the whole bubbled issue pops and explodes. then maybe the law will start to be enforced again.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I said that theres a difference between making a law because you think its wrong to do that and making a law because it interferes with other peoples liberties.

Protesting at a funeral is both wrong and interferes with the funeral atendees liberties.

I dont get it, you want to fight me even though I said that it was really about a restriction of liberties.

No, because of your comments like

Im against it because its illogical and suspicious.

If you think something like this is illogical and suspicious, then you have problems....

And who said I was fighting you? I only responded to one of your posts...

That it was more so about why this law is being created. Its not a law acting on when people are feeling uncomfortable to the point of physical violence but because they think its wrong.

Why do you keep saying this?
That's not really the case. Even if it was, who cares!? As a human being there are certain things that should be frowned upon by everyone.

Im saying this law is being made because people think protesting at a funeral is wrong.

What are you basing that on? Your own understanding or does it say that somewhere?

It should be that disturbing the peace law, that is already in place, and has been, just be enforced.

Again, like with the voting issue. People find loopholes and ways around those laws so other laws are made that are more specific.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Protesting at a funeral is both wrong and interferes with the funeral atendees liberties.

none of you are to determine what wrong and what isnt. You may not like that, but thats the plain truth. When it comes to morals, you dont decide whats right and what isnt. It does though interfere with the funeral atendees rights, which is why they should report a public disturbance.

No, because of your comments like

Im against it because its illogical and suspicious.

If you think something like this is illogical and suspicious, then you have problems....

And who said I was fighting you? I only responded to one of your posts...

Its illogical because there are already laws to stop disturbing the peace and such. Its suspicious because the lawmakers know this yet instead of coming down on the police for not enforcing it (if in fact such calls were made of disturbing the peace) they make a law that has to do with moral issues.

Why do you keep saying this?
That's not really the case. Even if it was, who cares!? As a human being there are certain things that should be frowned upon by everyone.

Thats your own opinion. None of you are to decide whats morally right or wrong. You are not one to say, nor is anyone. Thats too bad if you dont like that. This is a country based on freedoms, not morality. If we start basing our laws on morals what makes us any different then an islamic run government? They base their laws on morals too. Our own laws here are suppose to be based on "you can do whatever you like, so long as it doesnt interfere with other peoples rights to do the same"

What are you basing that on? Your own understanding or does it say that somewhere?

why else is the law being made? We already have laws that deal with disturbing the peace and such. Your taking a certain instance and making a law based on that certain instance. Your not making a law on it because its interfering with these peoples freedoms and rights. They would call the police if it was, and the police have the laws necessary to act on that call. So the only other reason to make it a law is because people believe it is wrong. Theres no other reason to make it a law. Theres already a law there to stop it. If the people dont call the police, thats their fault. If the police dont respond, crack down on the police. Dont make a law that deals with morality.

Again, like with the voting issue. People find loopholes and ways around those laws so other laws are made that are more specific.

this isn't the case. I cant blast my music through the neighborhood in the middle of the night claiming free speech, ill get slapped with disturbing the peace. I can try to fight it, but I will lose eventually because that law is there. The law is that you cannot infringe on other peoples rights, which they are doing. Plain and simple, freedom of speech does not override that.

Protesters operate, BY LAW, by a different set of rules than the general public.

Why don't you guys get that?

You guys keep saying "Disturbing the peace or Public Nuisance" but those laws do not governer protesters.

For God sakes Grim you posted the Rights to Deminstrate and Protest on page 2 of this thread. lol www.nlg-la.org...

Q. Can my free speech rights be restricted because of what I want to say – even if it’s controversial?
A. No. The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the content of speech. However, this does not mean that the Constitution completely protects all types of free speech activity in every circumstance. Police and government officials are
allowed to place certain non-discriminatory and narrowly drawn “time, place and manner” restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Q. Where can I engage in free speech activity?
A. Generally, all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional “public forums” such as public sidewalks and parks. Public streets can be used for marches subject to reasonable permit conditions. In addition, speech activity may
be permitted at other public locations such as the plazas in front of government buildings which the government has opened up to similar speech activities.

Q. Do I have a right to picket on public sidewalks?
A. Yes. This is an activity for which a permit is not required. However, picketing must be done in an orderly, non-disruptive fashion so that pedestrians can pass by and entrances to buildings are not blocked. Contrary to the belief of some law enforcement officials, picketers are not required to keep moving, but may remain in one place as long as they leave room on the sidewalk for others to pass.

Q. Can a speaker be silenced for provoking a crowd?
A. Generally, no. Even the most inflammatory speaker cannot be punished for merely arousing the audience. A speaker can be arrested and convicted for incitement only if he or she specifically advocates violence or illegal actions and only if those illegalities are imminently likely to occur.

Q. Do counter-demonstrators have free speech rights?
A. Yes. Although counter-demonstrators should not be allowed to physically disrupt the event they are protesting, they do have the right to be present and to voice their views. Police are permitted to keep two antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within the general vicinity of one
another.

Q. Is heckling protected by the First Amendment?
A. Although the law is not settled, heckling should be protected, unless hecklers are attempting to physically disrupt an event, or unless they are drowning out the other speakers.

Q. Does it matter if other speech activities have taken place at the same location in the past?
A. Yes. The government cannot discriminate against activists because of the controversial content of their message. Thus, if you can show that events similar
to yours have been permitted in the past (such as a Veterans or Memorial Day parade), then the denial of your permit application is an indication that the government is involved in selective enforcement.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
So why can't anti-Abortionists be allowed to picket and pray their rosaries
right next to the abortion clinic?? If the Phelps wing nuts are allowed to
go in cemetaries and shout AWFUL things at people who are practicing their
faith .. then prolifers should be allowed to sit on abortuary steps and
shout nasties at women who are about to commit abortion.

Right?

Excellent point, and I am waiting for an explanation why there are laws that restrict that type of protest when this other law is unpalatable.

Commissioners alter abortion protest laws
By Tim O'Melia

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Monday, May 22, 2006

WEST PALM BEACH — Rebuffed by a federal judge in its first try, city commissioners approved a pair of less restrictive laws Monday to keep protestors away from people entering an abortion clinic.

More than 110 people filled the commission chambers and a dozen, some of them wearing pink "Ensure Patient Safety" stickers, debated the revised laws which forbid anyone from impeding traffic or approaching cars in roadways near health care facilities and also bans amplified sound.

Laws

Abortion clinics are private property. Protesters can protest on the sidewalks but they cannot stop or interfere with people who want to enter the abortion clinic. It is all in the PDF. www.nlg-la.org...

Originally posted by zerotime
Q. Do I have a right to picket on public sidewalks?
A. Yes. This is an activity for which a permit is not required. However, picketing must be done in an orderly, non-disruptive fashion so that pedestrians can pass by and entrances to buildings are not blocked.

And this, Phelps and his band of scum should be allowed to do.

If they're not yelling or otherwise disrupting the funeral, they chould have a right to do it.

The problem with the stuff you highlighted is that you have to complete the whole sentence.

"so that pedestrians can pass by and entrances to buildings are not blocked."

The protesters are not blocking anyone from attending the funerals.

If they're not disrupting the funeral and they're not yelling and disturbing the peace, then they have a right to protest it.

The funeral-goers can either look at them and get all upset about them or ignore them.

disturbing the peace does not count for protesters. Protesters are allowed to yell their little hearts out. That is basically what protesting is all about. Have you ever seen a protest before?

EDIT:
And the protest speaker cannot be silenced.

Q. Can a speaker be silenced for provoking a crowd?
A. Generally, no. Even the most inflammatory speaker cannot be punished for merely arousing the audience. A speaker can be arrested and convicted for incitement only if he or she specifically advocates violence or illegal actions and only if those illegalities are imminently likely to occur.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by zerotime]

Well, then I guess the funeral goers would just have to deal with it. Except for this ban. Now they don't have to deal with it.

I still disagree with it.

And yes, I would deal with it if I were a funeral goer. If I planned the funeral, I would have the funeral indoors and not have family and friends attend the burial or something. I would call up every biker I knew. I would work with the existing laws because Freedom of Speech is that important to me.

wheres the boundry between a protest and verbal assault though? Theres a difference between saying "homosexuality is wrong, and this country is paying for it" and "your son is going to burn in hell because he fought for a country that believes homosexuality is ok". He is not protesting an issue, but attacking a person. As soon as they direct anything toward them, they arent protesting anymore, they are making verbal attacks. This is exactly what they are doing though, they are making verbal attacks.

Also even protesters are not allowed to have something which will amplify sound, so any sort of loudspeaker could get them in trouble.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by grimreaper797]