Decency trumps free speech? Ah..no...

Not sure how many times we have to go over this but OK, one more time.

The First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech because popular speech needs no protection.

Having said that, the answer is no. You can not make a law that makes it illegal to exercises free speech--no matter how vile that speech. So, you don't have to like it but the wacky cult guys get to hold signs outside of soldiers funerals.

Stop the ACLU says no. They say:

Once again the ACLU are blind to good common sense and decency in favor of some absolutist view on free speech.

And yet, I'm pretty sure they don't like the law that makes abortion protesters stand--what is it? Thirty feet from an entrance of an abortion clinic?

Chris

Others talking about it: Independent Conservative, The World Wide Rant, Conservative Thinking, and Blue Star Chronicles

Comments

[Jay]

These laws are not attempting to make it "illegal to exercises free speech", they just put a buffer zone between the protesters and those that mourn. Don't they deserve that much respect?

[Chris]

The same argument was made for abortion clinics--a buffer zone--that law is now under attack...whcih is fine with me, but you can't have it both ways.

We have allowed our rights and liberties to be eroded...

Conservatives argue the Court implemented a social agenda and violated the Constitution. This is not a corective measure. This is the same thing just with the conservative agenda. Hey, I think these protesters are nuts. I think they are going to hell and should go to hell, but unpopular speech is still just speech...and now more than ever when the country is so divided and being against the war has been equated with treason and being a traitor I don't want anyone deciding which speech is allowed...

Freedom of speech is as absolute as you get--no one is in danger from this speech--like fire in a theatre--so it can not be abridged..

sorry, just my opinion...

[JFH]

Yes, but Chris, the ACLU DEFENDED the buffer zone law in the abortion case which makes them quite hypocritical.

(I for one, support buffer zone laws as there needs to be a line where your freedom of speech violates my right to be free from harrassment)

[BilltheMarine]

actually I believe that the original intent was to protect "political" speech. I doubt that the FF's would have approved of some knothead standing on the corner cursing like a drunken sailor. Speech is not totally protected, as the Supremes have vacillated on from time to time, but in this case these persons who are doing what they are doing could be construed as practicing "political" speech as homosexuality has entered the realm of political discourse. Personally if these persons want to stand at a funeral and make a$$es of themselves so be it. Of course if attacked and squashed by the funeral attendees I would wish to be on the jury trying the funeral attendees.

[Lee]

BillTM: To be on a jury you have to swear to be 'fair and impartial'..in your case above..would you be F & I ?

[USMC Steve]

Firstly, hate speech is in no way protected by the First Amendment, nor is speech which can reasonably be expected to create civil disturbances or cause violence or to endanger others (such as the yelling fire in a theater bit). What Phelps is doing is hate speech aimed specifically at homosexuals. Not one of the laws I have seen or heard of has said it is illegal to picket or demonstrate near a funeral, but they have put these turds out of range so they cannot generate the hate they need to thrive on.

As for the "law" you speak of, there is not one, but more than half a dozen states which have created a buffer distance from a funeral site, which in no way restricts these inbreeders from acting the fool, but makes it impossible for them to bother real people with their mental malfunctions. Phelps and his followers have no right whatsoever to bother funeral goers trying to bury their loved ones, indeed, his attempts could and should reasonably be interpreted as disturbing the peace. That is just what they are doing. Perhaps if they got 30 days in jail each time they did this nonsense, they might lose their zest for screwing with people simply because they can.

I met up with these fools when attending the opening of the Dole Center at K.U. They did everything they could to provoke a riot, including dragging a US flag around on the ground. When a Kansas Trooper told them he was going to arrest them all for disturbing the peace and inciting a riot (over 100 of us were about to take that flag from them and take our lumps for it - our version of political speech) they quickly backed down and left the area. Moral and physical cowards often do when they face actual consequences to their actions.

As for lee's question, yes I would swear to be so, and no I wouldn't. I would do my best to jury nullify in favor of the butt kickers because at some point common sense has to be applied. If you get in people's faces and beg for an asskicking, and then get one, you got what you deserved and no one should go to jail for giving you what you were asking for. Some people are too stupid to learn from anything but pain.

[Lee]

USMCSteve..You could play the lead in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"!

[USMC Steve]

Wow lee, you have me at a loss, since you made no sense at all, as usual. Try making a point if possible. You could even call me a cracker if it makes you feel better.

[Lee]

USMCSteve..Hint for Mr.Mini-brain:
Transvestite, masochism, pain, anal entry, bondage..it's always in your replies....sickoboy!

[USMC Steve]

I looked up fuckwit in the Funky Wagunalls the other day. (Lee says he uses it for his definitions). A picture of Lee was next to the definition of fuckwit. Color me so surprised.

Hey Lee, what is the 'groid version of the KKK? I am sure you are a charter member.