Quote :

"LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Kentucky's law forbidding protests within 300 feet of military funerals and memorial services was suspended temporarily Tuesday after a federal judge ruled it was too broad. The law passed earlier this year was aimed at members of a Topeka, Kan., church who have toured the country protesting at military funerals. The Westboro Baptist Church claims the soldiers' deaths are a sign of God punishing America for tolerating homosexuality. U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell wrote that the law could restrict the free speech rights of people in nearby homes, sidewalks and streets, even if they cannot be seen or heard by funeral participants. The 300-foot zone "is large enough that it would restrict communications intended for the general public on a matter completely unrelated to the funeral as well as messages targeted at funeral participants," Caldwell wrote in a ruling issued in Frankfort. Those found guilty of violating the law, which also applies to memorial services, wakes and burials, would face up to a year in jail. About a dozen states have similar laws in place, and Congress passed a law earlier this year prohibiting protests at military funerals at federal cemeteries. Appeal under consideration Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo said he would consider an appeal. "I believe that society has an interest in honoring its war dead. Funerals are times of sacred and solemn reflection which must be protected from aggressive disruption," Stumbo said in a statement. Lili Lutgens, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, which filed the suit, said Caldwell "reinforced the importance of freedom of expression," and that the ACLU will seek a permanent injunction throwing out the law. "We continue to support the commonwealth's efforts to protect funerals, but we know it's not necessary to violate the First Amendment to do that," she said. Shirley Phelps-Roper, attorney for and member of Westboro Baptist Church, praised Caldwell's ruling. "I'm surprised, but I'm happy about it," Phelps-Roper said. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Bart McQueary, a Mercer County man who has protested alongside the church members on three occasions. During their protests, members carry such signs as "Thank God for IEDs," the improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq. State Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, one of the sponsors of the law, said the 300-foot barrier is the same buffer zone used to keep people from campaigning at voting precincts during elections. "It would seem we want to give at least as much reverence to a funeral as we do an election," Buford said. "It seems like a sad day for our military." Lutgens said Caldwell's ruling could impact laws in other states, depending on how they are written and their similarities to Kentucky's statute."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15021014/



this pisses me off sooooooo bad

who the fuck calls themselves a good american and protests a fucking military funeral

10/6/2006 2:05:11 PM

What if i told you that the right to free speech trumps patriotism, is that something you might be interested in?

10/6/2006 2:33:40 PM

hahahaha.

10/6/2006 2:35:05 PM

What if I told you that public decency trumps free speech

because, I mean, it always has...

10/6/2006 2:38:13 PM

not really. . .

10/6/2006 2:43:14 PM

i just shit on the sidewalk because of freedom of dump

10/6/2006 2:44:22 PM

i agree with grumpyGOP big time here, your free speech doesn't belong anywhere near a military funeral. it's a goddamn funeral. go protest congress. leave these families alone

10/6/2006 2:45:37 PM

Quote :

"not really. . ."

So it'll be OK if I go flash my junk to the Chancellor to protest tailgating restrictions?

10/6/2006 2:47:44 PM

yelling fire in a movie theater is an obviously example as well.

10/6/2006 2:49:14 PM

^^^and let me clarify, i don't think it's right. but this leads to police judging what's an appropriate gathering at a funeral and what's an unacceptable "protest." that doesn't make me comfortable.
^^i wouldn't care.

dumping in the street is a health hazard though.


[Edited on October 6, 2006 at 2:58 PM. Reason : /]

10/6/2006 2:56:44 PM

i'm pretty sure a mourning family could tell you what is an appropriate gathering at their kin's funeral

10/6/2006 3:00:23 PM

so random people are going to become constitutional judges of freedom of speech now?

10/6/2006 3:01:43 PM

Quote :

"sarijoul: dumping in the street is a health hazard though."

true, but generally so is protesting the funeral of a dead soldier. just depends on who's health you're worried about.

10/6/2006 3:04:23 PM

Quote :

"i wouldn't care. "

And I don't care that you don't care, but the law in this country always has and still does prohibit me from doing a great many "free speech things," most of which resrictions the general population has no problem with.

I could make my goal to cause a public disturbance in protest of the war by yelling "Fire!" into crowded theaters and causing everyone to rush out in a panic. If I did that, I would go to jail, and it would be fine.

10/6/2006 3:12:49 PM

no it's a risk to public health -- which i think is a reasonable restriction on free speech. flashing someone or pissing someone off is not a risk to public health.

10/6/2006 3:15:28 PM

It's already covered under law. Any act that would incite a riot or damage to come to public or private property is punishable by law. (not the direct wording but pretty much every state has that)

Protesting at a funeral where people are mourning when you KNOW (and you're a fucking retard to think you wouldn't be) you would be angering people in an altered state. I hope you get your ass beat down.

You can scream free speech all you want through my steel toed boot. There is a time and place for everything. Do it at a military celebration.

10/6/2006 3:28:31 PM

so why make a specific law about military funerals?

if the "protest" is risk a to public health or safety, then that's one thing. but there are obvious gray areas here where a protest (while arguably reprehensible) is completely peaceful and just is being done to make a point.

10/6/2006 3:31:14 PM

they are making a specific law because the times have warranted it, there used to not be a need to legislate it, just like there used to not need to be locks on doors

people didn't used to do that shit, they had common decency

now there is a need to actually legislate it

10/6/2006 3:59:51 PM

So, you know how you have to get a permit to hold a demonstration...is that an unconstitutional restriction of our free speech?

Why can't I film a kids show that shows people having sex and doing drugs and play it at 10:00 am on PBS?

Free speech can and has been limited by laws on decency. Protesting at someone's funeral over societal acceptance of something the deceased had NOTHING to do with is indecent. And if I see this kind of behavior going on, I will be going to jail for assault. I know its against the law, but some fuckers deserved to be beaten.

10/6/2006 4:00:27 PM

Quote :

"What if I told you that public decency trumps free speech"

Public decency doesn't trump free speech. "Fire!" type scenarios have nothing to do with public decency.

That said, protesting at funerals should be banned for various reasons-- disturbing the peace is the most obvious.

10/6/2006 4:03:32 PM

current laws could handle any dangerous protests at funerals. this law was a political move, plain and simple. it doesn't hold muster.

i don't agree with nazis being able to march down the street. but i understand and respect their right to do so.

10/6/2006 4:05:38 PM

^^i agree with you

i also said early after grumpy said that that i agreed completely with him, really it was the underlying idea he had, just to clarify that

[Edited on October 6, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : jank]

10/6/2006 4:06:47 PM

I think we all agree that the funeral protests should be banned.

I just have a problem with the notion that our First Amendment rights are determined by public sentiment.

10/6/2006 4:08:20 PM

^true the last thing you said

but if you think about it it's not the only thing

take self defense for example

back in the 1800s out west duals were common place and no one thought twice

now if you kill someone in revenge you get in just as much, if not more trouble than the person who committed the original wrong

just sayin that's another example of a notion determined by public sentiment

10/6/2006 4:11:18 PM

tasteful and free speech are not mutually inclusive, sorry.

10/6/2006 5:57:30 PM

Funny how the ones calling for decency trumping free speech, and punishments/laws against acts/words that could incite violence, are the same ones who decry Muslims when they go around burning shit when the Pope says something or a Danish paper prints some cartoons.

You can't have it both ways, folks.

Either you should be OK with both, or you should condemn both.

10/6/2006 5:58:24 PM

i think it's just a case of righteous indignation against ridiculous people fucking things up by doing inexcusable things, which is pretty much consistent in both scenarios.

[Edited on October 6, 2006 at 6:06 PM. Reason : asdfas]

10/6/2006 6:06:08 PM

Quote :

"decency trumping free speech"

if someone did this to a friend or family member that i lost i would go apeshit.

10/6/2006 7:40:25 PM

thats very brave of you...everyone look how brave that guy is^

it's a good thing you're not doing constitutional interpretation for a dayjob!!1

[Edited on October 6, 2006 at 7:44 PM. Reason : PROUD]

10/6/2006 7:44:06 PM

its not about constitutional interpretation. the friends and family attending these funerals have been dealt a traumatic blow that they will never forget and its wrong for a bunch of gaybashers to roll in and screw up that lasting memory for them

its disrespectful to do it to anyone, military or not, and we shouldnt need a law to tell us not to do it because its really fucked up.

[Edited on October 6, 2006 at 8:07 PM. Reason : more]

10/6/2006 7:58:35 PM

it has everything to do with the interpretation of 1st amendment rights.

if you cant see that you dont need to be in this thread.

i think its absolutely egregious what the Kansas church group does, but when you buy into the system, you buy into it entirely.


plus you're arguing like a woman, emotionally. that has no place in this argument, except from a policy perspective, which is always going to ultimately get overrun by the judicial view.

[Edited on October 6, 2006 at 8:07 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2006 8:06:41 PM

^ i cant argue with that i just cant imagine peopel thinking its cool at all to be that crazy

10/6/2006 8:09:05 PM

well and thats the point.

no one is saying that by being allowed to do this they are good people or justified in exercising their rights

they're awful by every standard of human conduct,

but they are constitutionally protected, regardles of what congress did, and thats where the furor arises.

10/6/2006 8:10:50 PM

free speech ends when our millitary say so

10/6/2006 8:12:21 PM

that was a very value added comment Joshnumbers

thanks for your contribution

10/6/2006 8:16:57 PM

well weve already given away so much of our lives to the government for dumber shit whats this one extra thing of getting rid of the church people?

[Edited on October 6, 2006 at 8:22 PM. Reason : to the bar]

10/6/2006 8:21:49 PM

Quote :

"Funny how the ones calling for decency trumping free speech, and punishments/laws against acts/words that could incite violence, are the same ones who decry Muslims when they go around burning shit when the Pope says something or a Danish paper prints some cartoons. "

Because wanting you to move your protest a few hundred feet in the other direction for the sake of keeping the peace and firebombing churches are exactly the same thing.

Quote :

"but they are constitutionally protected, regardles of what congress did, and thats where the furor arises."

They are still constitutionaly and legaly allowed to protest, the law deals with protesting within X distance of a funeral. While I agree that this could easily be handled under current laws, it's not like we don't make a new law for every new event anyway. It's also worth noting that the law was overturned not on the grounds that it violated the protesters rights, but that it might violate the rights of other people.

10/6/2006 8:27:54 PM

that was a very value added comment Bob Ryan

thanks for your contribution

10/6/2006 8:55:49 PM

phelps and her church (westboro baptist church) are trying to save american by warning people at these funerals in an "i told you so" or "this could happen to your loved one" type of way

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gubiP3mP3Ds

[Edited on October 6, 2006 at 10:29 PM. Reason : funny as hell they are at all the amish funerals right now]

10/6/2006 10:28:42 PM

The people providing the funeral service should be responsible for security and providing a comfortable environment for the participants. There is no call for running to the gov't for protection against hateful/disgusting speech.

10/7/2006 11:08:03 AM

Quote :

"providing the funeral service should be responsible for security "

are you fucking kidding me?

10/7/2006 11:21:38 AM

Quote :

"The people providing the funeral service should be responsible for security and providing a comfortable environment for the participants. There is no call for running to the gov't for protection against hateful/disgusting speech."

While I would normaly agree, there is no legal way for them to do this. Generaly, the funeral home doesn't own the cemetary, and they certainly don't own the roadways so they would have no jurisdiction to control the area.

10/7/2006 1:03:06 PM

Quote :

"the funeral home doesn't own the cemetary, and they certainly don't own the roadways so they would have no jurisdiction to control the area."

I'm not positive but I think these laws are saying that the wackos would have to stay around 300 feet from the cemetary. So even with a law, funeral-goers can still be exposed to these protests.

Perhaps the people who own the cemetary could provide some type of security. Even if it is big sound-resistant portable barriers that you can surround around the service. Granted it's much more expedient to just trash the 1st Amendment, but I would make the private sector come up with some solutions first.

10/7/2006 9:11:56 PM

Quote :

"Thank god for dead soldiers"

Quote :

"Thank God for IEDs"

Seriously, if someone like that came to a military funeral...I'd beat their ass.

10/7/2006 10:23:43 PM

Quote :

"Funny how the ones calling for decency trumping free speech, and punishments/laws against acts/words that could incite violence, are the same ones who decry Muslims when they go around burning shit when the Pope says something or a Danish paper prints some cartoons."

Well let's see, is there any kind of significant difference between a fine and widespread destruction of property and threats on human life? Hmm...

But that notwithstanding, I have a couple of points:

1) I don't think there's many people in here who would argue (at least not lucidly) that free speech should go unrestricted. I can call public masturbation a protest, and I can conceivably do it in such a way that does not materially threaten public health, but I somehow doubt most of you would say that I should be able to jerk it to ending the war or anything. We seem to understand that there is a line somewhere, for the most part. And those who claim in theory that they wouldn't mind, placed in a situation where it happened, would (I'm willing to bet) sing a different tune.

Or, another way, if I get in your face and scream incessantly whenever you are in a public place, that qualifies at least as harrassment. Should I be able to follow you around and yell nonstop?

2) There are also different categories of speech, I think. There's the type where I broadcast a message to the general public, through any number of media. This type can be relatively easily avoided and is thus less problematic. Mohammad cartoons would fall in here -- if you don't like it, you can reasonably be expected to simply not expose yourself to it. Then there's the type where I'm clearly singling you out and focusing my speech to you and yours. Funeral protests fall in here -- you cannot reasonably be expected to avoid the speech, and with it, your loved one's funeral.

3) Speech pretty much never calls for any kind of arrest or physical harm, it just might occasionally call for relocation -- as in, away from the funerals.

[Edited on October 8, 2006 at 2:39 AM. Reason : I'm dru nk]

[Edited on October 8, 2006 at 2:42 AM. Reason : so, so drunk]

10/8/2006 2:39:13 AM

There is a solution: the Patriot Guard Riders. If the Harley engines don't drown out the protesting assholes, the riders could always spin rocks on them--accidentally, of course.

http://patriotguard.org/Home/tabid/53/Default.aspx

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1546852.php

10/8/2006 3:15:07 AM

^^ Damn cogent--particularly so considering that you are posting under the influence. I concur.

I apologize to you in advance for agreeing with you. Some here won't like that. Ah, fuck'em.

10/8/2006 3:25:29 AM

^^beat me to it.

10/10/2006 7:51:45 AM