Are funeral protests legal?

Discussion in 'The Soap Box' started by GROUPER TROOPER 32, Apr 13, 2010.

  1. GROUPER TROOPER 32

    GROUPER TROOPER 32 New Member

    289
    3
    0
    Following up on a recent thread, I thought about the legality of protesting a funeral and possibly defaming the deceased. Sure, the first amendment gives us certain rights for free speech but ends them when they become dangerous or when they break the law.

    Here is my point, it shocks my conscience and would bring a breech of peace to my community. It would be considered disorderly conduct, and would it not also be a hate crime if the continue to use the slur of "fag"? These people are not protesting down main street where we can avoid them but encroaching on a specific place where all cultures have respect and reverence.


    I am no legal eagle but I feel I could articulate it in court.

    I wonder how long this would be tolerated if the soldier was Muslim.

    Comments........
     
  2. Narsil

    Narsil Premium Member

    1,658
    10
    38
    Supposedly the US Supreme Court will hear a suit this month from the father of a KIA marine against the Westboro Baptist Church over their protests at the funerals of soldiers. It is not expected to go well for the gentlemen since the WBC has numerous lawyers ensuring that all the proper permits are pulled and that no WBC member "crosses the legal line" in what they do at the protests. The father has, unfortunately, lost this suit in the lower courts.

    As much as I would not shed a single tear should a 500lb meteor hit the "church" when every member is attending, I likewise cannot condone the government muzzling "peaceful" protests which are following all the legal rules. This is precisely where our government is heading with the Tea Partiers and other groups who are now rightfully protesting big government and government corruption. We will be likewise labeled as "hate groups" and they will attempt to likewise muzzle us.

    We must legally accept the good with the bad when it comes to personal freedom. Giving the WBC all this media exposure is precisely what they want. IMO the best defense against them is "Buckhingham-Palace-Silent" guardians keeping them away from the grieving family and absolutely zero attention paid them. No counter-protests. No media attention. No personal attacks. Completely freaking ignore them. Give them nothing.

    That and pray for the 500lb meteor on Sunday morning. :cheers:
     
    xthexheadx likes this.

  3. socofn

    socofn New Member

    245
    3
    0
    Protesting at a funeral is the lowest form of being. I do not care what a person's religion, politics or gender preference tend to be. We need to respect a person as a human. I would not do well if I encountered a protest at a funeral. JP
     
  4. xthexheadx

    xthexheadx New Member

    1,140
    12
    0
    narsil, you are a stand up guy. and while i agree with you fully, i'm weak. i fear for the WBC in the fact that i have a father-in-law who would LOVE to bail me out of jail for hitting them over the head with a big stick should i see them protest a fallen HERO. same way with dog fighting......if i see it, i'm pretty sure i'm going to the jailhouse that night. hehe...
     
  5. Narsil

    Narsil Premium Member

    1,658
    10
    38
    The jailtime, unfortunately, would be only first and least of your concerns. These WBC slimes are very smart for being so stupid. They have people well off to the sides videotaping everything that goes on at their protests. The same lawyers who ensure that they are following the letter of the law are more than happy and willing to instigate litigation against anyone who violates their "rights."
     
  6. GROUPER TROOPER 32

    GROUPER TROOPER 32 New Member

    289
    3
    0
    Narsil, it is my opinion of the law that their protests are not legal by being a shock to the conscience of the common man which would constitute a breech of peace.The Tea Party movement is becoming a joke, in my opinion. It has been adopted by the Republican Party and will be used as a platform which they will not uphold when in office.

    X, I hear you. Do you think he could afford bail for two?

    Want a further WTF moment, Maine is considering eliminating gender specific restrooms in schools to help out the trans-gender kids..awwww, isn't that nice!
     
  7. xthexheadx

    xthexheadx New Member

    1,140
    12
    0
    hes's a fairly well off guy, and doesnt mind to throw money where he likes it to be spent. so maybe......

    my jaw hit the damn table when i heard about doing away with gender specific bathrooms. think back to when you were a kid, school is tough enough. now you want to mix up kids even more? sounds like a horrible idea to me. girls are developing into younf ladies not to mention getting their monthly "gift"... and boys......geez....come on. what the hell are they thinking?

    how many transgendered kids can there be anyway? that might be the more alarming question.....

    anywho....

    why is it that so many people, put so much time, effort, and hatred into making other people feel worse than they most people already do? the WBC is like an annoying little brother on a long car trip "i'm not touching you, i'm not touching you" just waiting for you to hit them so they can be the victims.
     
  8. Syntax360

    Syntax360 Premium Member

    5,073
    13
    0
    Not nearly enough, obviously - that's why we need to make it easier to be a transgender. If we fuck up enough of them, their numbers may grow and then we can finally start fighting for real equality in this bigoted culture...

    Moved to The Soap Box, because this thread is political in nature and I want to curse about how fucked up these degenerates are making our country...
     
  9. ETH77

    ETH77 Premium Member

    2,473
    22
    38
    I sympathize with all the comments. But like my signature says, none of us has liberty unless all of us do. Note that the whole school thing becomes moot when we do away with the State-run schooling and associated revenue grab.

    So many of our problems are the great result of unintended consequences. Ask for "someone" to do something, let someone get the State to do it, and watch the problems multiply. The state must be constrained, for all our sakes. :tinfoil:
     
  10. shiroyu

    shiroyu Member

    200
    0
    16
    what about some good ol' eugenics...Im kidding but seriously lets round up these "protesters" and make em battle it out gladiator style...then we will be rid of them and they will have something legitimate to protest about namely violations of Human rights. One a serious note has any one heard about the proposed Uganda anti gay legislation. Guess who's behind it WBC among some other crazy right wing evangelical churches. All I'm saying is that if they honestly defend and even promote genocide then we have our first group to go
     
  11. Narsil

    Narsil Premium Member

    1,658
    10
    38
    Apparently most every judge in every lawsuit against them disagrees with you because I have heard of numerous lawsuits against them and not one instance of the WBC losing (except once and it was overturned by a higher court). As a matter of fact, the man whose suit is up before the SC, has been ordered by the last judge who decided for the WBC (the one whose decision is being questioned by the SC) to pay for the WBC's court costs.

    Talk about adding insult to injury. The man loses his son. His son's funeral is picketed by bigoted jerkoffs. He sues the jerkoffs. He loses. He is ordered to pay the jerkoff's legal fees.

    At least a bunch of people have sent in money to help defray the over $16,000 legal bill for the WBC, including Bill O'Reilly who has offered to pay it in totality. Now that's a stand up offer, right there.
     
  12. Bittrich

    Bittrich Premium Member

    232
    4
    18
    My view on these heartless money grubbers is essentially this. A family has a reasonable expectation of privacy when burying a loved one. Even at a public cemetery. Were it up to me, I would line every one of those members of the "Westborough Baptist Church" up against the wall and shoot each one of them. Without hesitation, and I would sleep quite well afterward thank you very much.


    Bittrich
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2010
  13. socofn

    socofn New Member

    245
    3
    0
    I found the article in our local paper today. I applaud the efforts of the gentleman suing this bunch of "F****** NUTS". These are the kind of nuts that give all us God fearing persons a bad name. I agree that we should be able to exercise our first ammendment rights as long as they do not impune somone elses rights, and in my meager humble opinion these people cross the line every time they step out of their respective lair. JP
     
  14. Syntax360

    Syntax360 Premium Member

    5,073
    13
    0
    That's probably not the kind of statement you want to make on public forum, Bittrich... Just sayin'.
     
  15. GROUPER TROOPER 32

    GROUPER TROOPER 32 New Member

    289
    3
    0
    Narsil, you are correct with the civil suits. But on a CRIMINAL level, do you think your local law enforcement agency should step in and disperse these people due to a breech of peace as they are stirring up the tranquility of the neighborhood/area? What is acceptable in San Francisco is not what is as accepted here.These protests in my area would be close to starting a small riot, seriously. I bet you will argue that free speech is a right. You are correct there. But as I said at the start of the thread, at what point does free speech stop being protected and be viewed as hate speech/harassment? You may say that the same conversation could be turned on gun owners or those less than thrilled with the government, like ourselves. That is already happening.

    Narsil, would you feel so strongly about free speech/hate speech if a respected member of the Jewish community was being heckled at their funeral by Nazi skinheads?


    There is a growing wave of the "look at me, I'm important" attitude in the USA. I'm sick of it.
     
  16. xthexheadx

    xthexheadx New Member

    1,140
    12
    0
    that reminds me of when i was about 13 years old, my cousin married a black man. But we are from a relatively small town in central Kentucky, and it didnt sit well with some of the more biggoted folks in town. there were picket signs, and along with the rice throwing...a few rocks. i'm not sure what my uncle said to them when he walked over there, alone, but they all got the crap and left. my uncle is my hero now that i think about it.
     
  17. Narsil

    Narsil Premium Member

    1,658
    10
    38
    Yes, I would feel as strongly about the Jewish/Nazi issue. I despise all those types of people but fundamentally recognize that any legal action taken against them for exercising their rights is actually nothing more than the restriction of my own rights. Were it my child whose funeral had been protested, I'm not sure how I'd handle it. My church hosted a conference years ago that sparked a protest from the gay, lesbian, transgender, "I'm so confused" community. They were out on the street in front of our steps yelling and screaming about close-minded bigoted hatred. You should have seen the looks on their faces on that hot, humid, Florida summer day when a group from our church came out to them with ice-cold bottles of water, smiles on our faces, and passed out the water with a "You do know God loves you, right? Well, I hope the rest of your day is pleasant." The protest sort of lost a lot of steam.

    The problem with fighting the WBC on legal grounds is that their lawyers are very sharp and as angry as these "protesters" seem, if you watch a lot of their videos (which I have [gag]) they are not. They are actually very emotionally calm (with an almost scripted skin of "anger") and they do not physically approach the people against whom they are protesting. They know where the legal line is and they toe it but they do not cross it.

    The way I see it is this. They have been doing this for a long, long time. "As of March 2009 the church claims to have participated in over 41,000 protests in over 650 cities since 1991." I cannot believe that more than a handful of police officers nationwide, if that, condone what the WBC is doing. My guess is that the overwhelming majority, nay, nearly unanimous vote from police officers would be more along Bittrich's could they get away with it. That being said, why do you think they are still getting away with it and winning lawsuit after lawsuit?

    It's because what they are doing is just as perfectly legal as it is heinously reprehensible. My God, even the KKK won't have anything to do with them! I would love to see every last one of them locked up in solitary for the remainder of their lives on bread and water rationing. BUT NOT FOR THE "HATE CRIMES" THEY ARE COMMITTING. That crap gets turned on every other person who disagrees with some tiny little minority. "Oh you disagree with me. You must hate me. Now it's against the law to openly disagree with me." It's bullcrap from both sides of the fence.

    I do not believe that they truly believe they are doing the "Will of God." I believe they have some other motivation and use that as their "freedom of speech/religion" excuse. I stand by my assertion that the best way to fight them is to block them peaceably from emotionally raping the grieving funeral attendees as much as possible, while otherwise completely ignoring them. If people walked past them like they didn't even exist, I think they'd give up. They want the attention and the national news coverage they get. They feed on the emotional hatred they stir up.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2010
  18. GROUPER TROOPER 32

    GROUPER TROOPER 32 New Member

    289
    3
    0
    Narsil, I respect your opinions and convictions so we must agree to disagree.

    Maybe we can pull in Apophis to do the dirty work.
     
  19. Narsil

    Narsil Premium Member

    1,658
    10
    38
    I can live with that. :salute:
     
  20. rickgonz

    rickgonz Member

    62
    1
    8
    I haven't yet read the case brought by the gentleman mentioned, but if anyone has a link to it, I'd like to read it.
    I think that based on generally accepted thinking in this country (I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutionalist, I do know how to use Google):
    There are some limitations to free speech. In other cases, for example there are laws against child pornography.
    In this case there MIGHT be a case based on "fighting words" (inciting to harm specific individuals maybe), or slander.
    In either possibility, of course it always depends on the actual situation, the cited cause for arrest by LEOs, evidence and judgement = court case. I do not believe that any govt authority can preemptively prohibit or arrest these demonstrators. And I assume that these people are saying that they are espousing core political beliefs which are the most protected speech.