Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Now, THAT's how to honor our war dead

I would think that protesters in the cemetary at all would be disruptive to the family of the deceased. And I don't think protesters have any business being there in the first place. It's a funeral, for goodness sake.

Basic human decency would lead a person to realize that the time and place was inappropriate, but since people like Phelps aren't in touch with their basic human decency, then I'm glad this law exists. The only downside, as was noted earlier, is that it doesn't extend to non-military funerals. I'm sure that the families of Matthew Shepherd and countless others would have appreciated a reprieve from the "Reverend's" hatemonging.

The law doesn't stop people from speaking their minds. It is just a reasonable compromise to respect the feelings and opinions of both sides.

Thanks to CJ for posting the actual words of the 1st Amendment. As an Imperial Oppressor I am not all that familiar with the actual words.

Now, if I understand this Phelps guy correctly, he is trying to claim protection of the 1st amendment under both the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. Is that right?

Because to me I cant see how, he can be a religion? Who decides? His church consists of mostly his extended family does it not? So him just up and calling his hate mongering a religion seems nothing more that a smoke screen.

But surely by going to a funeral and called down hate and hellfire and damnation on homosexuals and blaming them for the deaths of a son in Iraq breaks another part of this first amendment to “peaceably assemble” as this guy is most certainly not peaceable.

Now I am not taking sides in the debate but am genuinely curious. Over here we have laws to try to prevent incitement to hatred or violence on the grounds of race sex religion or sexual preference. They are not perfect and sometimes go to far the other way, but in general are a good thing. Is there nothing similar in the US?

Sorry if this is the wrong place to raise these sort of questions but I do find, on a academic and philosophical level, grey areas of morality like this fascinating.

Faraway, we have what we call "Hate Crime" laws. The idea is that when a crime is committed with prejudicial bias. (Honestly, whether I'm beaten up for being gay, catholic, short, or because of the $20 in my wallet it doesn't matter to me. The reasoning shouldn't define the level of criminal act. IMHO)

The problem with Phelps and like-minded folks (ie KKK) is they are entitled to their beliefs. And they can cry to the rooftops how wrong people are for disagreeing with them. Whether it's a funereal or a gradutation or a wedding, no one needs to hear some loudmouth condemning them for whatever reasons. That's where common decency comes into play. Seeing as how Phelps and co. don't take to those same rules of decency, Dubbya felt the need to put this law on the books.

The legality of it all comes to down what's reasonable assembly and what is disruptive. I'd rather have the right to assemble, even if it is disruptive then not, military service or general public.

Faraway Lad,

Regarding the free exercise of religion, it doesn't matter if millions believe as you do or only you believe as you do. And if I say that my religious beliefs are such that I believe all right handed lawyers with goatees are pure evil, then who is the government to say I can't believe that? However, like all rights, this is not absolute. My actions in regards to my religious belief can be limited by the government in certain cases. For example, if I believed that the only way to get in God's favor was to keep the carcasses of 30 dead animals in my house, the city could still keep me from keeping 30 dead animals in my house because of the public health hazard.

As far as I know, there are no "Hate Speech" laws in the US. however there are laws against inciting to riot. And Free Speech claims don't hold if you advocate violence against a person or group of people. So, I could talk about the badness of a particular group all I want as long as I don't encourage others to act violently towards those people.

Oh and in regard to these rights of free speech, assembly, etc. from the US Constitution, only prohibit the government from interferring with those rights. Therefore, Mr. Phelps (I refuse to call him "reverend") can't violate the right of peacable assembly.

I have disagreed and disliked Bush for years, and often use these types of threads to goof around among the serious posters. But I have to say, I've never seen Pres. Bush use his presidential powers to do the right thing like I think he is doing here.

Phelps should be able to say whatever he wants, but I don't think its a horrible travesty of justice to not allow him or like-minded individuals in a specific distance of a funeral. Or a wedding for that matter.

It is a slippery slope though. And I don't think it should be limited to just military funerals either.

I'm getting more conservative as I age, I think. Give me FDR, he was my favorite Pres, and usually all scholars have reasons to knock him down (stupid egg-heads ).

The government--especially under this administration--will eagerly adopt ANY law that restricts the right to protest.

What Phelps and his crowd are doing is disgusting and reprehensible... and absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Have they trespassed on private property? No. Have they caused a riot or disturbed the peace with their peaceable assembly? Regrettably, no.

Freedom of speech HAS to incorporate the right of lunatics like Phelps to shout hateful idiocy at the top of their lungs, or it means nothing. "Free speech zones" were born from this same impulse of setting specific-distance boundaries, and they're every bit as unconstitutional (although MUCH easier to object to, since they're not violating the rights of scum like Phelps).

Besides, if Rick's outraged by it, it's got to be a civil right worth protecting.

<Putting on Administrator hat>

Just because Rick's views are different from yours doesn't mean that he lacks the ability to know what a civil right is or isn't. He is a person with opinions and beliefs which have grown out of a lifetime of experiences, just like you. Debate those opinions and beliefs, but don't belittle his right to have them. Please refrain from personal comments of this type in this forum.

Thank you.

Thanks for the input guys. It really seems as if this is a huge grey area with worrying aspects of wanting to support whats right even if that means supporting people who's views you absolutly detest.