Crazy "God Hates Fags" church forced to pay $11 million

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
(And technically... No, our society has not deemed that the flag is deserving of such respect that desecrating it is illegal.)

Yes it has. We passed laws banning it. Those laws were struck down.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Are you really sure?

Of course.

You are confusing the act of suing with the result of the suit (or the laws). The act of suing was almost certainly provoked by the content. That is irrelevent to issues of free speech in this regard.

What is relevent to the issue of free speech are the laws applicable to the suit.

Different things. Don't confuse them.

The laws were passed to deal with these people and their message, of course the laws are about content. You want me to explain why the content was made illegal in one place and not another? Because the content is seen by people attending the funeral and it upsets them. Isn't that obvious?

Look up the law. (This is a federal case btw.) The law makes no distinction based on content. It is applied to any demonstration based on proximity, noise, and visual props... NOT CONTENT.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:5:./temp/~c109WUf160::

Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act (Received in Senate from House)

HR 5037 RDS

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5037

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 10, 2006

Received

AN ACT

To amend titles 38 and 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain demonstrations at cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN DEMONSTRATIONS AT CEMETERIES UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION AND AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY.

(a) Prohibition- Chapter 24 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 2413. Prohibition on certain demonstrations at cemeteries under control of National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery

`(a) Prohibition- No person may carry out--

`(1) a demonstration on the property of a cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or on the property of Arlington National Cemetery unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or the director of the property on which the cemetery is located; or

`(2) with respect to such a cemetery at which a funeral or memorial service or ceremony is to be held, a demonstration within 500 feet of that cemetery that--

`(A) is conducted during the period beginning 60 minutes before and ending 60 minutes after the funeral or memorial service or ceremony is held; and

`(B) includes, as a part of such demonstration, any individual willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the funeral or memorial service or ceremony.

`(b) Demonstration- For purposes of this section, the term `demonstration' includes the following:

`(1) Any picketing or similar conduct.

`(2) Any oration, speech, use of sound amplification equipment or device, or similar conduct before an assembled group of people that is not part of a funeral or memorial service or ceremony.

`(3) The display of any placard, banner, flag, or similar device, unless such a display is part of a funeral or memorial service or ceremony.

`(4) The distribution of any handbill, pamphlet, leaflet, or other written or printed matter other than a program distributed as part of a funeral or memorial service or ceremony.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`2413. Prohibition on demonstrations at cemeteries under control of National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery.'.

SEC. 3. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF PROHIBITION ON UNAPPROVED DEMONSTRATIONS AT CEMETERIES UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION AND AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY.

(a) Penalty- Chapter 67 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1387. Demonstrations at cemeteries under the control of National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery

`Whoever violates section 2413 of title 38 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1387. Demonstrations at cemeteries under the control of National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery.'.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON STATE RESTRICTION OF DEMONSTRATIONS NEAR MILITARY FUNERALS.

It is the sense of Congress that each State should enact legislation to restrict demonstrations near any military funeral.

Passed the House of Representatives May 9, 2006.

Attest:

KAREN L. HAAS,

Clerk.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes it has. We passed laws banning it. Those laws were struck down.

I was speaking of the current situation. You know... the one that applies now. Since we don't live in the past.

[Kuciwalker]

The current situation exists because of the Supreme Court case striking such laws down. We get proposed amendments every year banning it, too. The decision is fairly unpopular. But if we accept your assertion, the legal point stands that even when we deemed that the flag was deserving of such respect that desecrating it was illegal, the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is protected speech.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
we aren't arguing about whether the law is the law (whatever that means), we're arguing about whether or not the laws (and the grounds for lawsuits) are constitutional.

You're always arguing that the law isn't the law.

In this case you were arguing that the law is something other than what it is. You claim that the law is making content illegal, whereas I (and the law) are claiming that it targets demonstrations of a certain type, regardless of content.

We weren't discussing the constitutionality of the law at all. For all your arguing about content, it's sad that you don't seem to know what the contents of your posts are.

I doubt that, but if 51% of the people supported a ban, would that make it constitutional?

Depends on the law and the constitution. If 51% of people supported a ban on murder, I think it would be constitutional still. If 51% of people supported a ban on firearms, it would not.

To amend the constitution requires it be proposed by 2/3rds of the House and Senate (or alternatively requested by 2/3rds of the state legislatures), plus 3/4 ratification by the states. So 51% of people supporting an ammendment is unlikely to get it passed, especially given population discrepancies between the states, but is theoretically possible.

Oh, and blaming me for your bad argument

If you'd like to address the "argument", feel free. It should be good for laughs. You obviously don't understand that it wasn't an "argument", but rather an explanation of how the law is.

[Berzerker]

That's not an answer Berz. Unless you'd care to explain how exactly a funneral is a public event rather than a private mourning for families and friends. One also doesn't have the right to speech that is intended to incite violence.

They aren't attending the funeral, they're within eyesight of either the gravesite or the people coming and going. From what I understand these people stand on public sidewalks near the entrance so the people driving in see them. As for inciting violence, who would be the victims of this violence? The speakers? Is that like the "she was asking for it" argument? Inciting violence involves one person instructing another to attack a third person. I think you mean "fighting words"... Thats the defense of a person charged with assault after being provoked into a fight, not an excuse to sue the provoker.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The current situation exists because of the Supreme Court case striking such laws down. We get proposed amendments every year banning it, too. The decision is fairly unpopular. But if we accept your assertion, the legal point stands that even when we deemed that the flag was deserving of such respect that desecrating it was illegal, the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is protected speech.

The Supreme Court's rulings are part of what our society uses to determine what is legal and what is not. If our society felt strongly enough to make flag burning illegal it would be. There is just not enough support for it to pass through the amendment process at this time.

The Supreme Court may knock down these specific anti-demonstration laws. (I don't think so, given the current makeup, but it could happen.) At that point our society as a whole would have made a decision through set processes. It would then be up to us to determine if such a result is satisfactory, or if there is enough support to override the decision.

[Kuciwalker]

The Supreme Court's rulings are part of what our society uses to determine what is legal and what is not. If our society felt strongly enough to make flag burning illegal it would be. There is just not enough support for it to pass through the amendment process at this time.

The Supreme Court may knock down these specific anti-demonstration laws. (I don't think so, given the current makeup, but it could happen.) At that point our society as a whole would have made a decision through set processes. It would then be up to us to determine if such a result is satisfactory, or if there is enough support to override the decision.

Then what the **** are you arguing? I'm talking about the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence and its relation to this case. You're babbling about some inherent correspondence between the machinations of government and the will of society.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
They aren't attending the funeral,

I never said that they were. They are attempting to disrupt the service however and are trying to excuse the conduct by claiming that it was a public event a claim I, the jury, and apparently the judge reject. I'd enjoy seeing you support it though.

[Pekka]

I love it how people are so out of touch from reality that they think everyone is so civilized and peace loving, and in the name of democracy we'll just take everything, because it guarantees our rights as well.

DOesn't mean freedom of speech, but the right to be not beaten. When we come back to the real world, I don't know about you, but if some ugly mother****ers with no deodorant comes to the funeral of my loved one, starts with this crap, totally unrelated to the wedding anyway, refusing to leave, I will use all the violence I can, I hope I can really injure and hurt as many as possible, including the ****ed up kids if they brought any. I would probably start from the kids, so their parents wouldn't try to escape but instead would stay and perhaps even fight back and thus get killed in the process. Punch the first brainwashed punk in the kisser. Hit it with a baseball bat. You can always argue that it was 1 against 20, you were only defending yourself.

Yeah, protect their right to protest (why are they at funerals protesting, if they're doing it against the nation?), I'll protect my character and smash them into blood pulps. It's that simple. In the law of the nature, they just lost all their rights, even if the virtual man made laws apply. Too bad.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Then what the **** are you arguing?

Do you really need me to walk you through it?

Perhaps you should stop quoting me to make your arguments if you don't know what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence and its relation to this case.

No. You were talking about how it related to an "argument" which you had misinterpreted as an argument, when in reality all I had done is explain to Berz what the law is, and why we have it.

It's not my fault you didn't understand the context of what you were quoting.

You're babbling about some inherent correspondence between the machinations of government and the will of society.

You are the one who started us on the flag burning tangent. You are the one who brought up past laws that no longer apply. You are the one who brought up the Supreme Court's role in them no longer applying. If you are not satisfied with that line of discussion, you only have yourself to blame.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Ah, yes. That "church" deserve it. Preaching the gospel is one thing, the Bible is quite clear on the sin part, but preaching hate against other people, whatever their sin, is so totally un-christian. We are ALL sinners.

Westboro Baptist is more extreme but most Baptist Groups are shockingly close to Westboro's line of thinking. Baptists are just about the worst Protestant group out there.

[Berzerker]

You are confusing the act of suing with the result of the suit (or the laws). The act of suing was almost certainly provoked by the content. That is irrelevent to issues of free speech in this regard.

What is relevent to the issue of free speech are the laws applicable to the suit.

Different things. Don't confuse them.

Does that mean you think

I'm sure they were sued for content.

or

It's to do with where they say it, not what they say.

Look up the law. (This is a federal case btw.) The law makes no distinction based on content. It is applied to any demonstration based on proximity, noise, and visual props... NOT CONTENT.

Sure it does

(b) Demonstration- For purposes of this section, the term `demonstration' includes the following:

`(1) Any picketing or similar conduct.

Thats content... Dont PROTEST at funerals...

The courts have repeatedly knocked down laws that discriminate based upon content. So law makers try to get around those rulings by trying to disguise their intent by making the law "neutral", but the laws aren't neutral. The laws were written to block these people. Let me guess, you think supporting "The Patriot Act" is patriotic too because pols gave it a nice name? Now stop with the BS, the laws targeted protestors, not people standing around with blessings for the family and friends.

You're always arguing that the law isn't the law.

Where have I argued that, much less "always" ?

In this case you were arguing that the law is something other than what it is. You claim that the law is making content illegal, whereas I (and the law) are claiming that it targets demonstrations of a certain type, regardless of content.

Wtf? I argued the law is not the law because we dont agree about the intent of the law or the motives of the lawmakers? I'd love to see the quote you used for that nonsense.

We weren't discussing the constitutionality of the law at all. For all your arguing about content, it's sad that you don't seem to know what the contents of your posts are.

This comes from my first post

yup, this better not stand because it is CLEARLY discrimination based on content and a violation of both religious freedom and the freedom of expression. If y'all dont like the way our freedoms have been whittled away, this sure aint helping the cause... Cheering the decision is...shortsighted...

Clearly I'm arguing about the constitutionality (look at what I quoted for my response) of both the laws and this lawsuit. I've mentioned the 1st Amendment several times so if you think I haven't been arguing about the constitutionality of this you're nuts.

Depends on the law and the constitution. If 51% of people supported a ban on murder, I think it would be constitutional still. If 51% of people supported a ban on firearms, it would not.

Murder aint an act of freedom, holding a sign that says soldiers are dying because the USA is corrupt IS an act of freedom. Does that require an explanation?

To amend the constitution requires it be proposed by 2/3rds of the House and Senate (or alternatively requested by 2/3rds of the state legislatures), plus 3/4 ratification by the states. So 51% of people supporting an ammendment is unlikely to get it passed, especially given population discrepancies between the states, but is theoretically possible.

But you said

They were charged with interrupting a service, which while on public property, our society has deemed deserving of respect.

That was your argument, and thats 51% making the decision. Now you say its unlikely an amendment would pass with 51%. So is the Constitution your basis or what "society" has decided? The Constitution has not been amended yet, therefore flag burning and protesting funerals are protected.

If you'd like to address the "argument", feel free. It should be good for laughs. You obviously don't understand that it wasn't an "argument", but rather an explanation of how the law is.

Of course it was an argument, you said our society has deemed funerals deserving of respect. The flag has not been deemed deserving and that was your distinction between the two. Sure it explains how the law came to be, but its still an argument for why you believe the two situations are different.

[Berzerker]

I never said that they were. They are attempting to disrupt the service however and are trying to excuse the conduct by claiming that it was a public event a claim I, the jury, and apparently the judge reject. I'd enjoy seeing you support it though.

How are they disrupting the funeral? By holding signs people can see? And while I'm not privy to their arguments, their stated intent is to inform a corrupt nation why its soldiers are being killed. And that they have the religious freedom and the freedom of speech to do this by standing on public land with signs.

No. You were talking about how it related to an "argument" which you had misinterpreted as an argument, when in reality all I had done is explain to Berz what the law is, and why we have it.

Geez, we know why and how the law came to exist. What a waste of time.

[Kuciwalker]

No. You were talking about how it related to an "argument" which you had misinterpreted as an argument, when in reality all I had done is explain to Berz what the law is, and why we have it.

You are the one who started us on the flag burning tangent. You are the one who brought up past laws that no longer apply. You are the one who brought up the Supreme Court's role in them no longer applying. If you are not satisfied with that line of discussion, you only have yourself to blame.

...

I don't know what's wrong with your head. I went back and reread your posts, and your entire argument is incoherent.