Town of Hebron, IN, to restrict public protest

[rambone]

why?

Is it a violation of your freedom of speech if someone interrupts you? Talks over you? Annoys you? Offends you?

I've bothered a few people in the past through protests and arguments. You would claim I violated their "rights" of freedom of speech/assembly/religion?

If I were at a funeral for a family member and couldn't hear the graveside prayer over their nonsense, wouldn't they be infringing on my right to religious ceremony?

It would be obnoxious, but that is not exactly what the "right" guarantees. It is critical we come to a consensus about what it means to have a right.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

One of the reasons that people will always have trouble living together in a large, diverse society is that we have an innate inability to either care about the infringement of the rights of those we don't like, or to realize that by standing by and watching it happen, we all have lost.

 

[MikeDVB]

One of the reasons that people will always have trouble living together in a large, diverse society is that we have an innate inability to either care about the infringement of the rights of those we don't like, or to realize that by standing by and watching it happen, we all have lost.

In short - there is no such thing as 'common courtesy' anymore just like 'common sense' is also mythological.

 

[Destro]

Is it a violation of your freedom of speech if someone interrupts you? Talks over you? Annoys you? Offends you?

is it a violation of your freedom of speech if .gov does the same?

 

[RockofStrength]

Disney.

Not illegal - just out of the faces of grieving parents and family. Stand there once and you'll know why. I really don't know how to argue with someone why it should not be allowed for someone to blast air horns and scream profanities in the faces of grieving parents and families at the side of their childs grave. I'm really at a loss for that. I'm just glad to live in a democratic republic and not total anarchy.

With every ounce of respect possible, you cannot make law based upon emotion. The law must be blind and utterly unsympathetic to everything, including the emotions of a grieving parent standing over their brave child's grave. To do otherwise is to be a part of mob rule dictated by emotion and whim, which is much closer to anarchy than the republic many brave men and women have died to defend. We have judges and juries to deal with the emotional aspects of law, and a modicum of laws regarding things such as self-defense and the like to deal with the high-emotional states that typically cause deaths or injuries, but a man's right to free speech cannot be curtailed for the sake of even the noblest emotion.

 

[rambone]

is it a violation of your freedom of speech if .gov does the same?

No. Because those obnoxious personal qualities have nothing to do with anyone's freedom.

If you don't like the annoying person, you are free to leave. There is no coercion. Being annoying is not an initiation of force. Hence, no violation of any rights.

 

[public servant]

Bone, will you be there to support the WBC protestors?

 

[hornadylnl]

A government big enough to restrict the WBC is big enough to restrict the Tea Partiers, Right to Lifers, etc.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

With every ounce of respect possible, you cannot make law based upon emotion. The law must be blind and utterly unsympathetic to everything, including the emotions of a grieving parent standing over their brave child's grave. To do otherwise is to be a part of mob rule dictated by emotion and whim, which is much closer to anarchy than the republic many brave men and women have died to defend. We have judges and juries to deal with the emotional aspects of law, and a modicum of laws regarding things such as self-defense and the like to deal with the high-emotional states that typically cause deaths or injuries, but a man's right to free speech cannot be curtailed for the sake of even the noblest emotion.

Well, apparently you are wrong. At least the folks in Hebron, as well as a number of other communities and some states, have spoken. They believe our democratic republic does indeed give them lattitude in the law to move these people 300' away so the parents and family can at least be alone in their grief at the grave side. That's how it works. Enough people say enough is enough and things change. Those families can't simply "walk away" as was suggested - they're standing in a private service on a grave site that can not "walk away". I fail to see how that ordinance eats away at constitutional private speech. The same way I don't see how disallowing a convicted felon the right to possess a firearm eats away at 2A. I don't see how disallowing prison inmates the vote eats away at anyone's constitutional freedom.

We are quite obviously at an empass.

 

[Bang-bang]

The first amendment protects your right to speak your mind in public.--true

I protest the protesters, how they gonna stop me, yep dish it out, it will come back!

 

[hornadylnl]

Well, apparently you are wrong. At least the folks in Hebron, as well as a number of other communities and some states, have spoken. They believe our democratic republic does indeed give them lattitude in the law to move these people 300' away so the parents and family can at least be alone in their grief at the grave side. That's how it works. Enough people say enough is enough and things change. Those families can't simply "walk away" as was suggested - they're standing in a private service on a grave site that can not "walk away". I fail to see how that ordinance eats away at constitutional private speech. The same way I don't see how disallowing a convicted felon the right to possess a firearm eats away at 2A. I don't see how disallowing prison inmates the vote eats away at anyone's constitutional freedom.

We are quite obviously at an empass.

Wait til 51% of the population decides that guns are no longer needed.

 

[rambone]

Well, apparently you are wrong. At least the folks in Hebron, as well as a number of other communities and some states, have spoken. They believe our democratic republic does indeed give them lattitude in the law to move these people 300' away so the parents and family can at least be alone in their grief at the grave side. That's how it works. Enough people say enough is enough and things change.

"How it works", if the constitution still has meaning, is that if the majority of the people no longer want free speech, they should work to amend the constitution before setting up Free Speech Zones and arresting protesters.

I fail to see how that ordinance eats away at constitutional private speech. The same way I don't see how disallowing a convicted felon the right to possess a firearm eats away at 2A.

When you view "rights" as privileges that can be revoked, you have abandoned the concept of God-given, inalienable rights. Sooner or later your privileges may be revoked too.

Bone, will you be there to support the WBC protestors?

I said earlier I would be happy to stand with the Patriot Guard Reserve. That's something that can be done that doesn't involve government censorship or erosion of the Bill of Rights.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Wait til 51% of the population decides that guns are no longer needed.

That will indeed be a sad day and I hope I'm long since dead by then. Australia and the UK know all to well what happens when the majority decides citizens no longer need to be armed.

You know we could turn this on ourselves - that is since we never were really talking about free speech, it was always about 2A - if more of us were involved in educating the voting public about firearms and getting them in to shooting and enjoying their freedom, less of an adversarial relationship, then we wouldn't - maybe just maybe - be so close o that 51%. Like it or not, the majority will eventually get their way. Instead of wishing for eutopia, maybe work with what we have and convince people they'd like shooting and enjoy the freedom and independence of firearm ownership.

 

[public servant]

Disregard.

 

[Destro]

No. Because those obnoxious personal qualities have nothing to do with anyone's freedom.

If you don't like the annoying person, you are free to leave. There is no coercion. Being annoying is not an initiation of force. Hence, no violation of any rights.

so would you say it is ok for the .gov to act in a way that is obnoxious or annoying as long as no force was used? Would you view it as ok for the fire department to park next to the WBC and run their sirens until they get annoyed and leave?

 

[rambone]

so would you say it is ok for the .gov to act in a way that is obnoxious or annoying as long as no force was used?

Obnoxious and annoying is pretty subjective, wouldn't you say? For example...

​

Would you view it as ok for the fire department to park next to the WBC and run their sirens until they get annoyed and leave?

I don't think there is anything stopping them.