Congress passes funeral protest ban

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Sandman
Has anyone tried to picket the funerals of members of Phelps' cult?

I don't think any of them are dead yet. Apparently God really does hate us.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I agree with bans on protests at funerals, but I'm surprised the American libertarians haven't posted comments against this ban on freedom of speech. Doesn't this funeral ban stink of political correctness. Isn't it ironic that soldiers die for freedom only to have freedom banned at their funerals.

Come on Libertarians, you're letting your side down!

Yeah, I disagree with the law, no matter how popular the law is, it's unconstitutional, and I would not be surprised to see the Supreme Court strike it down, (well maybe now with Roberts and Alito in there, it will be).

As disguisting as it is to protest at funerals, if it is a public place, it is their right.

Next they'll be outlawing people writing into to forums about how much they hate ravers, like they did Kyle Huff shotgun blasted to death 6 of them.

And what if a soldier requested a protest at his funeral? (good point Agathon) Some of them are really pissed off about the stop-loss program the Pentagon has imposed. In fact, I dare say, this law may make it more likely to happen, since a soldier may be able to view his death now as a chance to make a biggger statment in his death, by defying a law, and getting his message out about how upset he is that now he is dead, because the military forced him to stay in Iraq.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I thought the federal government buried civilians at federal cemetaries as well (Arlington springs to mind). So there wouldn't be a commerce clause issue,

In the Violence Against Women Act, Congress found that beating up women prevented them from engaging in interstate commerce...but in Lopes (or Lopez?), the Supremes required a more direct affect on commerce.

Of course, this portion of the argument does not apply if states pass laws against this type of bruhaha.

but one wonders if a President is buried in Arlington, will he be characterized as military by being "Commander in Chief"? Unfortunately a Supreme Court Justice or Senator, etc couldn't fall back on that justification .

You have to be military or ex-military to get into Arlington.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


I don't think any of them are dead yet. Apparently God really does hate us.

God is giving them time to see the error of their ways. He's really going out on a limb on this one, but after all there will be plenty of time for the rough stuff later on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

no matter how popular the law is, it's unconstitutional

Why? Congress (or state legislatures) can put time, place, manner restrictions as long as they are not too burdensome. That's why you have to be X away from abortion clinics.

In the Violence Against Women Act, Congress found that beating up women prevented them from engaging in interstate commerce

Control over a FEDERAL cemetary wouldn't involve commerce clause issues. The fedral government already has the right to act on it, due to the fact they OWN the property.

You have to be military or ex-military to get into Arlington.

First, wouldn't everyone be considered 'ex-military' at that point?

Second, that's not entirely true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_National_Cemetery

Notable civilians

* Julian Bartley, Sr. (54), and his son Jay Bartley (20), killed together in the US Embassy, Nairobi terrorist attack.
* Dana Falkenberg (3), who was killed in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. Buried in a mass grave with four others.
* Michael P. Hammer, American Foreign Service officer captured and murdered by guerillas in El Salvador.
* Marie Teresa Rios Versace, author of Fifteenth Pelican, basis for The Flying Nun TV show.

On July 24, 1998, U.S. Capitol Police Officers John Michael Gibson, 42, and Jacob Joseph Chestnut, 58, were killed in the line of duty and granted burials at the Cemetery.

Whether or not they were wartime service members, presidents and defense secretaries are eligible to be buried at Arlington, since they oversaw the armed forces.

[Zkribbler]

Control over a FEDERAL cemetary wouldn't involve commerce clause issues. The fedral government already has the right to act on it, due to the fact they OWN the property.

This was a response to your suggestion that the Commerce Clause could be used to extend the federal ban to all cemetaries. I think the Supremes wouldn't let it be stretched that far.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
This was a response to your suggestion that the Commerce Clause could be used to extend the federal ban to all cemetaries. I think the Supremes wouldn't let it be stretched that far.

I NEVER made such a claim. Where are you getting this from?

The only thing I said was that Congress can expand a ban to all funerals (ie, at federal cemetaries - I don't think this law covers military at private funeral sites).

[Sava]

I'm not a fan of Phelps, or obnoxious *******s protesting these funerals... but this type of law makes me uneasy.

Just wait... soon, they will start restricting all protests into "free speech zones".

I forget who... but I remember someone saying, "America is a 'Free Speech Zone'"


Sorry... but unless these protests are causing a direct threat to someone, I am against restricting them. Free speech is about being able to express your views whenever and wherever you please (public spaces)... the right to assemble. As soon as we start restricting it just because we find some people's views distasteful... well, then I think we've forgotten what freedom is supposed to be about.

But it's just so easy to be supportive of this ban because the poster boy for it is Fred Phelps... and it's OUR TROOPS... and ZOMFG, IF YOU ARE AGAINST THE BAN, YOU ARE AGAINST THE TROOPS!



Think about this... this just doesn't ban Fred Phelps and his dickhole band of retards from shouting their filth at funerals. It bans people from going to funerals and waving flags and holding signs supporting the troops as well.

When you ban free speech, you ban everything.

But what is more important... protecting "the sanctity of our military funerals" or protecting the sanctity of freedom of speech?

For some reason, a lot of dumbasses seem to think funerals are more important than free speech.

My solution... don't ban the protests... just send someone to break Phelps' legs.

Why make a law just for this asshat?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Yeah, I disagree with the law, no matter how popular the law is, it's unconstitutional, and I would not be surprised to see the Supreme Court strike it down, (well maybe now with Roberts and Alito in there, it will be).

As disguisting as it is to protest at funerals, if it is a public place, it is their right.

Next they'll be outlawing people writing into to forums about how much they hate ravers, like they did Kyle Huff shotgun blasted to death 6 of them.

And what if a soldier requested a protest at his funeral? (good point Agathon) Some of them are really pissed off about the stop-loss program the Pentagon has imposed. In fact, I dare say, this law may make it more likely to happen, since a soldier may be able to view his death now as a chance to make a biggger statment in his death, by defying a law, and getting his message out about how upset he is that now he is dead, because the military forced him to stay in Iraq.

This restriction is at a Military funerals at Government cemetery.

[Berzerker]

Why? Congress (or state legislatures) can put time, place, manner restrictions as long as they are not too burdensome. That's why you have to be X away from abortion clinics.

Clinics were being blocked, these people aint blocking the cemetary.

Control over a FEDERAL cemetary wouldn't involve commerce clause issues. The fedral government already has the right to act on it, due to the fact they OWN the property.

Which means the 1st Amendment applies... If the states couldn't do this, how can the Feds? The Phelps gang was picketing the funerals of people suspected of being gay long before this issue came up. I dont know, Imran, they're trying to move the protestors out of sight and thats more than just a time/place regulation.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm not a fan of Phelps, or obnoxious *******s protesting these funerals... but this type of law makes me uneasy.

Just wait... soon, they will start restricting all protests into "free speech zones".

I forget who... but I remember someone saying, "America is a 'Free Speech Zone'"


Sorry... but unless these protests are causing a direct threat to someone, I am against restricting them. Free speech is about being able to express your views whenever and wherever you please (public spaces)... the right to assemble. As soon as we start restricting it just because we find some people's views distasteful... well, then I think we've forgotten what freedom is supposed to be about.

But it's just so easy to be supportive of this ban because the poster boy for it is Fred Phelps... and it's OUR TROOPS... and ZOMFG, IF YOU ARE AGAINST THE BAN, YOU ARE AGAINST THE TROOPS!



Think about this... this just doesn't ban Fred Phelps and his dickhole band of retards from shouting their filth at funerals. It bans people from going to funerals and waving flags and holding signs supporting the troops as well.

When you ban free speech, you ban everything.

But what is more important... protecting "the sanctity of our military funerals" or protecting the sanctity of freedom of speech?

For some reason, a lot of dumbasses seem to think funerals are more important than free speech.

My solution... don't ban the protests... just send someone to break Phelps' legs.

Why make a law just for this asshat?

More of less my position.

Something being disgusting does not in itself a law...

I think a funeral is a very distateful place to protest in most cases (we can always think of exceptions), but is should still be legal.

think of all the places you could outlaw manifestations and protestation in the same spirit of such a law...

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the states couldn't do this

Who said?

It's 300 ft from the cemetary entrance (a football field length). I don't see why it wouldn't be held as a valid time, place, manner restriction. You'll still be able to hear them as you go in.

Clinics were being blocked

Not really. It was to prevent them from getting toe to toe with young women and screaming at them. Sometimes the barriers are across the road. Sometimes there is a restriction on noisy demonstrations during clinic hours (which was held up by the courts)

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


No one is banning anything here... they are merely saying you have to stay X yards away. It's a time, manner, place restriction, which is ok. But restricting it to military funerals may raise questions of whether this this viewpoint discrimination (because you can protest all you want at non-military funerals right up the casket).

this means i can use a sky writer right?