Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

When the service for my oldest son (MSG-USMC) was held a large group of motorcyclists carrying flags placed themselves at intervals throughout the surrounding streets in order to intercept any demonstrators from such as the Westboro church. The police who were on hand left the bikers alone. --FLO--

[Dave (imported)]

I've heard of motorcycle groups blocking out the demonstrations. It is amazing that a group we might look down on as criminal - motorcycle gangs - have more respect for the dead than a church.

[Riverwind (imported)]

This so called church is for the most part one family, there all related, there are only about 250 of them if memory serves.

But I do like the idea of protesting every funeral that comes to them, I hope is soon and often.

They deserve the very best.

River

[A-1 (imported)]

This so called church is for the most part one family, there all related, there are only about 250 of them if memory serves.

But I do like the idea of protesting every funeral that comes to them, I hope is soon and often.

They deserve the very best.

River

Well, if they are allowed to mate only with those who belong to their church, that COULD explain their problem.

...their family tree has no branches...

[transward (imported)]

Well, if they are allowed to mate only with those who belong to their church, that COULD explain their problem.

...their family tree has no branches...

True, but would you want them mating with normal people and polluting the gene pool.

Transward

[SplitDik (imported)]

A lot of people talk about freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is really about the freedom for LIKE-minded people to talk together as well as anyone to talk to government. It is NOT about people being able to say anything they want to anyone else.

So there are lots of things you might say that are not protected: libel and slander, perjury, hate speech, noise bylaw violations, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, inciting riots, planning criminal activity, etc.

Phelps should be allowed to picket at government buildings, and should be allowed to discuss his views with other like-minded people. But verbal harassment at funerals is probably not a protected free speech, so I'm glad this is getting tested.

[Dave (imported)]

A lot of people talk about freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is really about the freedom for LIKE-minded people to talk together as well as anyone to talk to government. It is NOT about people being able to say anything they want to anyone else.

So there are lots of things you might say that are not protected: libel and slander, perjury, hate speech, noise bylaw violations, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, inciting riots, planning criminal activity, etc.

Phelps should be allowed to picket at government buildings, and should be allowed to discuss his views with other like-minded people. But verbal harassment at funerals is probably not a protected free speech, so I'm glad this is getting tested.

And there is the legal prize ---- Splitdick is so on the right path.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And as strong as that is, it does not justify speech that damages the common good in many ways - as SplitDick says - We may not slander. We may not cry fire in a darkened theater. We may not reveal troop movements. However, remember that the Supreme Court held that the Executive Branch could not prevent Ellsberg from releasing the Pentagon Papers. That's called Prior Restraint and that decision is a powerful limit on the power of government.

A few huge legal questions here are:

"Does the right of privacy cover a funeral?" We already know that the government search our houses without a warrant (due cause).

"Is a cemetery that is normally open to the public able to restrict the public from demonstrating?

"Are certain rituals inherently private or are they public events? We publicize them in the newspapers with as public a notice as we sell homes, announce public meetings, etc...

"Is the nature of mourning for the dead specially protected so that speech can be restrained around it by a law preventing demonstrations or political speech?

"Another sacred moment, marriage... In a marriage, the question is posed: If anyone know cause why this couple should not be wed, speak now or forever hold your peace. It can be argued that a marriage is a sacred ritual, at least as sacred and solemn as a funeral. Why is it permissible to ask it the marriage may proceed and not allow political speech at a funeral?

I am not making this easy for anyone.

I want to know how the Supreme Court decides this case.

Understand that the letter of the law does not help much. Neither does what is called a Fair Reading of the Constitution or the Amendments. This will be a decision on the spirit of the law. This decision goes to the philosophical basis of the Constitution -- to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty -- and those are the most fascinating decisions the Supreme Court makes -- the decisions that pit the Constitution against the Bill of Rights.

That's the brilliance of the Supreme Court -- a tribunal of men whose lives are devoted to the interpretation of law -- are the arbiters of the Constitution and the law. They are not elected by the people. They are not subject to schedules other than their own. They sit devoted to only one thing - the constitutionality of legal matters brought before them.

[hdlss_hrsmn (imported)]

I don't feel they should be prohibited from protesting. I also don't think they should be treated as anything better than the fearmongering scum they are, whether protesting or not. What needs to happen is for one of these funerals to be attended by the living comrades of the fallen soldier, who are prepared to counter-protest. There are what, maybe a dozen of these wackos? Imagine how things would turn if they were surrounded by maybe 50 active duty Marines shouting right back at them, encircling them so they can't leave.

You can't legislate assholishness. You can, however, defeat it with smarter assholes.

[Riverwind (imported)]

Freedom of speech only goes so far, You can't holler FIRE in a theater unless there is really a fire, this is the same thing.

River

[hdlss_hrsmn (imported)]

Freedom of speech only goes so far, You can't holler FIRE in a theater unless there is really a fire, this is the same thing.

River

The difference is that shouting FIRE causes a stampede and people get hurt. Picketing funerals just pisses people off. I hate to say it, but they have as much right to do it as the skinheads do to have parades. Offensive? Absolutely. But not being offended is not a right -- something those of a different extreme religious bent would do well to remember when the next Muhammad cartoon comes out.

Besides, I'd rather have the world see what they're breeding.