Setting precedent for free speech zones

[Garb]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/military-funeral-protesters-vow-to-defy-new-law/

This president is quickly proving himself to be the biggest police state advocate we've had in the white house in quite some time. Private individuals were handling this issue just fine before the gubermint got involved anyways.

 

[atvdave]

 

[The Commissioner]

Military Funeral Protesters Vow to Defy New Law - ABC News

This president is quickly proving himself to be the biggest police state advocate we've had in the white house in quite some time. Private individuals were handling this issue just fine before the gubermint got involved anyways.

If "private individuals were handling this issue just fine," why does Westboro Church continue to add to the grief of military families by even threatening to show up at the funerals, much less attending? If private individuals were free to handle this issue, enough hickory shampoo would have been applied that Westboro's reaction would be to find a different venue to exercise their right to free speech.

 

[Garb]

If "private individuals were handling this issue just fine," why does Westboro Church continue to add to the grief of military families by even threatening to show up at the funerals, much less attending? If private individuals were free to handle this issue, enough hickory shampoo would have been applied that Westboro's reaction would be to find a different venue to exercise their right to free speech.

Daily Dot | "Human Wall" organized at Aurora memorial via Facebook

 

[VikingWarlord]

If "private individuals were handling this issue just fine," why does Westboro Church continue to add to the grief of military families by even threatening to show up at the funerals, much less attending? If private individuals were free to handle this issue, enough hickory shampoo would have been applied that Westboro's reaction would be to find a different venue to exercise their right to free speech.

As much as I wish that entire congregation would burn to death, these laws just aren't Constitutional. SCOTUS ruled (correctly) in their favor last year.

There are plenty of private individuals and organizations that deal with the WBC. The Patriot Guard Riders are one of the best known.

There was also a town somewhere (location escapes me) where people figured out where they were staying and parked their vehicles in. When the police were called, the WBC members were told there were other calls that took priority and would be there as soon as they could. IIRC, they showed up about 4 hours later, after the cars had already been moved and long after the funeral had ended.

While the WBC is composed of the absolute lowest scum imaginable, they're covered by 1A just like everyone else. Have to accept the bad with the good.

 

[level.eleven]

Military Funeral Protesters Vow to Defy New Law - ABC News

This president is quickly proving himself to be the biggest police state advocate we've had in the white house in quite some time. Private individuals were handling this issue just fine before the gubermint got involved anyways.

This bill had sweeping bipartisan support. "The president" simply signed the bill into law. It was written by 3 Republicans.

 

[rambone]

WBC was always about creating free speech zones. Classic employment of the Hegelian Dialectic.

All of this would be avoided by getting buried on private property.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This bill had sweeping bipartisan support. "The president" simply signed the bill into law. It was written by 3 Republicans.

You have a very good point. It seems to support that notion that voting for a real candidate rather than picking the (hopefully) less bad between Mittens and BamBam isn't such an unworkable idea after all.

 

[atvdave]

I don't see in the link provided that says anyone can not exercises their 1A rights. All it says is that if you are there to protest that you must stay back 300' 2 hours before & 2 hours after..

I may not agree with it but I have not read where is says they they can not protest at all..

 

[rambone]

I don't see in the link provided that says anyone can not exercises their 1A rights. All it says is that if you are there to protest that you must stay back 300' 2 hours before & 2 hours after..

I may not agree with it but I have not read where is says they they can not protest at all..

Congress shall make no law...

 

[donnie1581]

I'd like them to come to Indiana and try that picketing crap.

 

[figley]

As a veteran, and an American, I believe WBC's behavior is abhorrent. It is antagonistic, and borders on infringing on others' right to peaceably assemble.

The title of this thread is misleading, if not outright dishonest. "Free Speech Zones", were invented by an administration prior to Obama's. The difference is, the precedent for free speech zones was set by parties wishing to insulate the president, and members of his administration from hearing protests against specific policies of the administration, and, in a Kim Jung Il manner, make the president appear to be more popular than he actually was. That exercise of free speech is integral to the health of our republic, whereas the constitutionality of WBC's displays, (not the words themselves, but the manner in which they present them) is spurious, at best.

 

[VikingWarlord]

I'd like them to come to Indiana and try that picketing crap.

Ok, which time they already did would you like to see?

ETA: It should be noted that several states have passed their own similar bills, Indiana included.

 

[spearheadersarge]

I really question their "Church" statis. I think maybe it is just a cult comprised of a couple of inter-related families with a few odd ducks thrown in as well. I don't agree with what they do but the 1st Amm is for everybody, even those you disagree with!

 

[Garb]

This bill had sweeping bipartisan support. "The president" simply signed the bill into law. It was written by 3 Republicans.

I'm not a bit surprised.

As a veteran, and an American, I believe WBC's behavior is abhorrent. It is antagonistic, and borders on infringing on others' right to peaceably assemble.

The title of this thread is misleading, if not outright dishonest. "Free Speech Zones", were invented by an administration prior to Obama's. The difference is, the precedent for free speech zones was set by parties wishing to insulate the president, and members of his administration from hearing protests against specific policies of the administration, and, in a Kim Jung Il manner, make the president appear to be more popular than he actually was. That exercise of free speech is integral to the health of our republic, whereas the constitutionality of WBC's displays, (not the words themselves, but the manner in which they present them) is spurious, at best.

No, you've got it wrong. The first amendment guarantees that the government will not infringe upon your right to peaceably assemble, not that no one will infringe upon that right. In this case, to protect one group's right to assemble peacefully, they would have to violate another group's rights to assemble peacefully.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I really question their "Church" statis. I think maybe it is just a cult comprised of a couple of inter-related families with a few odd ducks thrown in as well. I don't agree with what they do but the 1st Amm is for everybody, even those you disagree with!

And who are you to tell that cult that they're not a legitimate religion? Their beliefs are different, and offensive to yours, and mine. The First Amendment is for everyone. Even those we disagree with.

 

[thebishopp]

Congress shall make no law...

There is that little tidbit.

Personally I don't like Westboro but government intervention is unconstitutional. Now if they were physically blocking people or using some kind of force then I would expect legal repercussions.