Congress passes Funeral Protest Ban

[Evan the Shaggy]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House.

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Wednesday hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said prior to the Senate vote.

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," he said.

Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

The sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said he took up the issue after attending a military funeral in his home state, where mourners were greeted by "chants and taunting and some of the most vile things I have ever heard."

"Families deserve the time to bury their American heroes with dignity and in peace," Rogers said Wednesday before the House vote.

The demonstrators are led by the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, who has previously organized protests against those who died of AIDS and gay murder victim Matthew Shepard.

In an interview when the House bill passed, Phelps said Congress was "blatantly violating the First Amendment" rights to free speech in passing the bill. He said that if the bill becomes law he will continue to demonstrate but would abide by the restrictions.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, said the loved ones of those who die have already sacrificed for the nation and "we must allow them the right to mourn without being thrust into a political circus."

In response to the demonstrations, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcycle group including many veterans, has begun appearing at military funerals to pay respects to the fallen service member and protect the family from disruptions.

More than a dozen states are considering similar laws to restrict protests at nonfederal cemeteries. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a new Kentucky law, saying it goes too far in limiting freedom of speech and expression.

Agree 100% with them on this one.

[james michael]

thank fucking god...

[Jim T.]

It's nice and all and those people are complete assholes, but there's no way targeted legislation like this survives a First Amendment challenge, nor should it. The ACLU will kill it dead if those nutjobs don't do it themselves.

[james michael]

It's nice and all and those people are complete assholes, but there's no way targeted legislation like this survives a First Amendment challenge, nor should it. The ACLU will kill it dead if those nutjobs don't do it themselves.
i dont think the first amendment protects harassment...

[Kenneth I. Wolfe]

I'm against this, BUT it's nice to have something shut those fuckers up.

[xyzzy]

Yeah, this thing is going down in flames. Everybody who voted for it is an idiot. It sounds like they didn't even try to make it Constitutional.

[Ray G.]

I don't like it. Douchebags have free speech too, whether we want them to or not. It'll get tossed out.

[TheKraken]

I just don't know about this. You're entitled to free speech, but are you entitled to emotionally damage innocent people with malice aforethought? If your free speech is deliberately harmful to someone, how far can you go?

Maybe the whole state of Kansas should be given a restraining order against those assholes... :lol:

[CapnChaos]

I think they realize it's not going to survive scrutiny, but it's probably more sybolic than anything else to show that EVERYONE thinks what these people are doing is wrong.

[CapnChaos]

I just don't know about this. You're entitled to free speech, but are you entitled to emotionally damage innocent people with malice aforethought? If your free speech is deliberately harmful to someone, how far can you go?

Maybe the whole state of Kansas should be given a restraining order against those assholes... :lol:
We don't like them, either.

They've become a joke to us in the Northeast area around Topeka. We laugh in their faces and if we weren't such civilized people, we would beat the crap out of them.

[gwyllgi]

I am against funeral protests but I do believe in freedom of speech. Of course I believe that it's going from speech to our right malicious harassment when these fuckheads start their protests at funerals. They did it to Matthew Shepherd too, and that was awful.

[xyzzy]

I just don't know about this. You're entitled to free speech, but are you entitled to emotionally damage innocent people with malice aforethought? If your free speech is deliberately harmful to someone, how far can you go?

If they cross the line, then there are already laws on the books to take care of them. But to pass a law specifically targeting one group? That's unconstitutional any way you slice it.

[gwyllgi]

would it be unconstiutional to set them on fire?

just a LITTLE bit?

[james michael]

I just don't know about this. You're entitled to free speech, but are you entitled to emotionally damage innocent people with malice aforethought? If your free speech is deliberately harmful to someone, how far can you go?

Maybe the whole state of Kansas should be given a restraining order against those assholes... :lol:
thats what i was wondering...

i dont think that the first amendment protects harassment...

[TheKraken]

We don't like them, either.

They've become a joke to us in the Northeast area around Topeka. We laugh in their faces and if we weren't such civilized people, we would beat the crap out of them.


Oh, man, if they showed up at a funeral for a friend of mine, I'd be in prison for the rest of my life, and they'd obtain firsthand knowledge that their god doesn't exist... fuck civility...

[TheKraken]

That's unconstitutional any way you slice it.

Well, I know that. I guess, like bloodyheck, what I'm wondering is if what they do isn't already illegal from the right point of view. If nothing else, isn't it disturbing the peace? If my friend's band can be fined for practicing in their garage... :lol:

[Jim T.]

i dont think the first amendment protects harassment...

There are harassment laws on the books - curbing free speech, no matter how awful, is never going going to be permitted where there's an existing framework for dealing with unwanted behavior.

[Scotty]

It should be handled like abortion clinic protests. In our country one of rights is to protest. We have freedom of assembly. We may not agree with a certain point but there maybe a time in your life where you feel the need to protest and we don't want to start curtailing our rights. It's never a good thing.

[james michael]

There are harassment laws on the books - curbing free speech, no matter how awful, is never going going to be permitted where there's an existing framework for dealing with unwanted behavior.
what they do isnt speech tho...

its harassment cloaked as a peaceful gathering wityh the intent to annoy and malign...

[xyzzy]

Oh, man, if they showed up at a funeral for a friend of mine, I'd be in prison for the rest of my life, and they'd obtain firsthand knowledge that their god doesn't exist... fuck civility...

These assholes get most of their funding to travel around the country from lawsuits. I'm sure they'd be overjoyed if you started laying into them. They'd get more money and more media attention.

[half guard]

i think that douchebags that protest funerals should be allowed to do just that. and the rest of us should be allowed to kick said douchebags in the crotch as hard as we can.

[james michael]

real easy solution would be to protest outside their homes and "churches" at ungodly hours, working in shifts to make their lives as difficult as possible...

[Jim T.]

what they do isnt speech tho...

its harassment cloaked as a peaceful gathering wityh the intent to annoy and malign...

Agreed- which is why they could and should get prosecuted under a harassment law. What I'm trying to convey to you (and failing apparently :D ) is the easiest way to get a law booted as a free speech violation is to be able to point to an existing law that doesn't involve a possible free speech violation. That way, a judge doesn't even need to get to the merits of the free speech issue - he just has to say "there's already a way to handle this".

[james michael]

Agreed- which is why they could and should get prosecuted under a harassment law. What I'm trying to convey to you (and failing apparently :D ) is the easiest way to get a law booted as a free speech violation is to be able to point to an existing law that doesn't involve a possible free speech violation. That way, a judge doesn't even need to get to the merits of the free speech issue - he just has to say "there's already a way to handle this".
that takes too long...

[Generic Poster]

I think they realize it's not going to survive scrutiny, but it's probably more sybolic than anything else to show that EVERYONE thinks what these people are doing is wrong.


I'm glad congress has so much fucking free time that they can pass symbolic, unconstitutional, doomed-to-fail laws. The legislative and the executive bitch about the "activist judiciary," but then take no responsibility whatsoever for conforming their shit to the constitution. It sickens me.

[Kenneth I. Wolfe]

that takes too long...

That's why we should fight ADD first.

[james michael]

That's why we should fight ADD first.
im kinda serious...

going the harassment route is only a temporary thing, and doesnt keep them from repeating what they do again in other jurisdictions... this stops it completely, without having to wait for them to pull their shit, get fined or whatever, then moving on to someplace else to do it again...
this is cost efficient...

[Jim T.]

im kinda serious...

going the harassment route is only a temporary thing, and doesnt keep them from repeating what they do again in other jurisdictions... this stops it completely, without having to wait for them to pull their shit, get fined or whatever, then moving on to someplace else to do it again...
this is cost efficient...

Nah. You over-estimate the power of Congress to enforce laws. Nothing can ever get stopped completely when it's so new and involves a constitutional issue - the moment it gets enforced, it will be challenged in the courts (assuming no one gets an injunction on enforcement slapped on this right away). This will be in the courts for months, even if it is constitutional.

[Kenneth I. Wolfe]

im kinda serious...

going the harassment route is only a temporary thing, and doesnt keep them from repeating what they do again in other jurisdictions... this stops it completely, without having to wait for them to pull their shit, get fined or whatever, then moving on to someplace else to do it again...
this is cost efficient...

Personally, I think we need a sort of militia to shoot these religious nutjobs (I'm sounding like Ray on two counts). How about the army?

[james michael]

Nah. You over-estimate the power of Congress to enforce laws. Nothing can ever get stopped completely when it's so new and involves a constitutional issue - the moment it gets enforced, it will be challenged in the courts (assuming no one gets an injunction on enforcement slapped on this right away). This will be in the courts for months, even if it is constitutional.
i dont overestimate anything, and of course anything passed by congress will be contested in court, that was more of a "in a prefect world" statement...

[xyzzy]

i dont overestimate anything, and of course anything passed by congress will be contested in court, that was more of a "in a prefect world" statement...

In a perfect world, those jackasses wouldn't even exist.

In the real world, we sometimes have to protect the free speech of people we think are jackasses.

[james michael]

In a perfect world, those jackasses wouldn't even exist.

In the real world, we sometimes have to protect the free speech of people we think are jackasses.
ITS NOT FREE SPEECH!!! :x

theyre not there epacefully, and theyre infringing on the rights of others by doing what theyre doing...
it aint free speech...

[classicist]

ITS NOT FREE SPEECH!!! :x

theyre not there epacefully, and theyre infringing on the rights of others by doing what theyre doing...
it aint free speech...

The only way it wouldn't be free speech is if it fell under the fighting words doctrine, in which case it would be considered to be insulting , but without any content. As it is, the fact that it has content, and a message - however asinine the message may be - means that it is, in fact, speech, and deserves all the protections thereof.
I'd like to note that the system is already working in this case: individuals who disagree with their message are lining up at their rallies and shouting louder, or drowning out their voices. See? Freedom of speech works. No need to legislate.

[james michael]

The only way it wouldn't be free speech is if it fell under the fighting words doctrine, in which case it would be considered to be insulting , but without any content. As it is, the fact that it has content, and a message - however asinine the message may be - means that it is, in fact, speech, and deserves all the protections thereof.
I'd like to note that the system is already working in this case: individuals who disagree with their message are lining up at their rallies and shouting louder, or drowning out their voices. See? Freedom of speech works. No need to legislate.
and what about the people who are burying their sons or daughters, just wanting peace?

theres a limit to free speech when it comes to defamation and breach of the peace, and i would consider such protests to fall under both...

[Jim T.]

and what about the people who are burying their sons or daughters, just wanting peace?

theres a limit to free speech when it comes to defamation and breach of the peace, and i would consider such protests to fall under both...


Just so you're clear on what you're arguing about here - there's nothing that says "free speech" anywhere in the constitution. The issue is the government's power to regulate speech. So when people talk about "free speech" they're talking about the ability to speak without fear of government prosecution. So whether or not what these nutjobs are doing is "free speech" isn't decided yet and won't be until the challenged and resolved in the courts. You consider it to be harassment, they consider it to be proper use of public areas. Ultimately, whether it's "free speech" is in the hands of a judge.

[james michael]

Just so you're clear on what you're arguing about here - there's nothing that says "free speech" anywhere in the constitution. The issue is the government's power to regulate speech. So when people talk about "free speech" they're talking about the ability to speak without fear of government prosecution. So whether or not what these nutjobs are doing is "free speech" isn't decided yet and won't be until the challenged and resolved in the courts. You consider it to be harassment, they consider it to be proper use of public areas. Ultimately, whether it's "free speech" is in the hands of a judge.
im talking about in the eyes of the constitution...
if they were taken to court on this, and they claimed free speech, they would lose...

[RebootedCorpse]

This is a great idea.
It's also unconstitutional. It will be overturned.

[classicist]

and what about the people who are burying their sons or daughters, just wanting peace?

theres a limit to free speech when it comes to defamation and breach of the peace, and i would consider such protests to fall under both...

First off, slandering someone is punishable via tort after the fact, not beforehand, and the statements made by the protestors don't rise to that level because (1) the individual arguably being slandered is dead, and, therefore, cannot bring action and (2) no false statements of fact are being made. In such a case, the plaintiff has to prove that what was being said is false, and there's no way to do so when the statement is that someone is going to hell.
Second, if the protestors commit a breach of the peace, by exceeding volume regulations for a zone, or blocking public access, there's precedent for a balance between their rights and those of the public, as in the case of abortion protestors. However, even in those cases, we didn't countenance an outright ban on the protests, as despicable as they were.
For me, the issue boils down to one of content discrimination. This presumably wouldn't be an issue if the protesters were asking for increased funding to prevent future deaths, or wanted to shout slogans supporting the families. As such, the laws aren't aimed at preventing demonstrations, they're aimed at preventing a certain message, and that's something the government should stay far away from.

[Jim T.]

im talking about in the eyes of the constitution...
if they were taken to court on this, and they claimed free speech, they would lose...

:surrend:

[sonnylarue]

Funny how this congress can't get much that's actually useful passed, but they break their necks to rush through nonsense acts like this or the Terry Schiavo proclamation.

I agree that those who crash funerals are assholes, but I would think calling the cops on a disturbing the peace charge would cover funeral crashing.

[Generic Poster]

Funny how this congress can't get much that's actually useful passed, but they break their necks to rush through nonsense acts like this or the Terry Schiavo proclamation.

Today, they're passing a resolution that proclaims that kicking puppies is "mean."

[sonnylarue]

As such, the laws aren't aimed at preventing demonstrations, they're aimed at preventing a certain message, and that's something the government should stay far away from.

yep

[classicist]

Funny how this congress can't get much that's actually useful passed, but they break their necks to rush through nonsense acts like this or the Terry Schiavo proclamation.

I agree that those who crash funerals are assholes, but I would think calling the cops on a disturbing the peace charge would cover funeral crashing.

Yep, when something passes Congress quickly and by a large margin, it generally means that some larger-than-normal idiocy is at hand...

[Jim T.]

yep

Don't you have a podcast to be working on??? :D

[Foolish Mortal]

i dont think the first amendment protects harassment...

There are harassment laws on the books - curbing free speech, no matter how awful, is never going going to be permitted where there's an existing framework for dealing with unwanted behavior.
Freedom of speech only extends so far. Once your freedom infringes on someone else's freedom, then yours can be restricted. I think BloodyHeck is right on this.

[sonnylarue]

Don't you have a podcast to be working on??? :D

Part 4 will be up by Friday.

[NickT]

Freedom of speech only extends so far. Once your freedom infringes on someone else's freedom, then yours can be restricted. I think BloodyHeck is right on this.
I agree.

[classicist]

Freedom of speech only extends so far. Once your freedom infringes on someone else's freedom, then yours can be restricted. I think BloodyHeck is right on this.

The only way in which this speech is infringing on their freedom is by upsetting them. They aren't stopping them from burying someone, or from getting to the cemetery, and there is no right not to be offended. You can wear a jacket that says "Fuck the Draft" into a federal courthouse, the KKK can march down the streets of a black neighborhood, Nazis can talk about how the holocaust didn't happen. If the offense results in harm, then the offender can be sued. At most, this is a tort. We cannot allow government to ban a message on the grounds that the message is offensive or disagreeable.

[xyzzy]

Freedom of speech only extends so far. Once your freedom infringes on someone else's freedom, then yours can be restricted. I think BloodyHeck is right on this.

What rights do you think are being infringed upon by this speech?

[Jim T.]

Part 4 will be up by Friday.

I keed, of course. But still - looking forward to it - these are your best yet!

[Jacob Lyon Goddard]

I'm against any broad restriction on our right to assembly or protest

[james michael]

First off, slandering someone is punishable via tort after the fact, not beforehand, and the statements made by the protestors don't rise to that level because (1) the individual arguably being slandered is dead, and, therefore, cannot bring action and (2) no false statements of fact are being made. In such a case, the plaintiff has to prove that what was being said is false, and there's no way to do so when the statement is that someone is going to hell.
Second, if the protestors commit a breach of the peace, by exceeding volume regulations for a zone, or blocking public access, there's precedent for a balance between their rights and those of the public, as in the case of abortion protestors. However, even in those cases, we didn't countenance an outright ban on the protests, as despicable as they were.
For me, the issue boils down to one of content discrimination. This presumably wouldn't be an issue if the protesters were asking for increased funding to prevent future deaths, or wanted to shout slogans supporting the families. As such, the laws aren't aimed at preventing demonstrations, they're aimed at preventing a certain message, and that's something the government should stay far away from.

i read this again, and its a contradiction...

telling people that some ones going to hell or whatever, isnt slander, because it cant be proven, but that would also mean that any "message" these people are sending is null, since it has no substantive value, right? so theyre not there for any message, or to protest any movement or fight for any cause, theyre there to create disharmony and chaos, nothing else, under the guise of religious freedom...

[Brian Defferding]

Rediculous. It's blatantly oversteps the first amendment; I hope the Senate shoots it down or it gets overturned by the court system.

[classicist]

i read this again, and its a contradiction...

telling people that some ones going to hell or whatever, isnt slander, because it cant be proven, but that would also mean that any "message" these people are sending is null, since it has no substantive value, right? so theyre not there for any message, or to protest any movement or fight for any cause, theyre there to create disharmony and chaos, nothing else, under the guise of religious freedom...

The fact that something can't be proven doesn't mean that it isn't a substantive measure, merely that it is a statement of opinion. They have a clear message: "This soldier died in the pursuit of an immoral cause, and will go to hell." This message has both political and theological implications, and is protected speech. Content free speech that doesn't get protection is calling someone by a vulgarity that doesn't have any meaning outside of "I'm trying to offend you."
As for religious freedom, they don't get any special protected because their message is based in religious doctrine. Their first amendment rights to speech more than cover the issue, unless the government were telling them that they couldn't preach such things in their church.

[james michael]

The fact that something can't be proven doesn't mean that it isn't a substantive measure, merely that it is a statement of opinion. They have a clear message: "This soldier died in the pursuit of an immoral cause, and will go to hell." This message has both political and theological implications, and is protected speech. Content free speech that doesn't get protection is calling someone by a vulgarity that doesn't have any meaning outside of "I'm trying to offend you."
As for religious freedom, they don't get any special protected because their message is based in religious doctrine. Their first amendment rights to speech more than cover the issue, unless the government were telling them that they couldn't preach such things in their church.
thats not their message...
their message is that the soldier died because gay people are gay...

[classicist]

thats not their message...
their message is that the soldier died because gay people are gay...

Fine. But the fact that they have an interpretable message means that we can't ban the dissemination of their message because we disagree with it.

[NickT]

Do people have a problem with cordoning off crime scenes? Isn't that infringing your rights?

[james michael]

Fine. But the fact that they have an interpretable message means that we can't ban the dissemination of their message because we disagree with it.
thats not what you said... you said that what theyre doing cant be considered salnder, because we cant prove that what they say is true, but if they cant prove what they say is true, then what they say has no substantive value, and cant be considered a message or cause... they have no agenda other than to bother, and have no longterm goals, unlike the majority of protests... they arent doing what theyre doing to protest the war, or to endorse any cause... they are there to terrorize people, plain and simple... they have no message, and thats where im coming from...

[Nick Hale]

I just don't know about this. You're entitled to free speech, but are you entitled to emotionally damage innocent people with malice aforethought? If your free speech is deliberately harmful to someone, how far can you go?

Maybe the whole state of Kansas should be given a restraining order against those assholes... :lol:

Maybe everyone should be, their dumbasses don't stay in Kansas, I'm from a small town in Kentucky and they were here about 6 months ago protesting.

[Generic Poster]

Do people have a problem with cordoning off crime scenes? Isn't that infringing your rights?

What constitutional right do you think a temporary cordoning to investigate a crime scene (a legitimate function of the state) infringes on?

I'm glad to see that most people here support free speech, so long as it's speech they agree with.

[classicist]

thats not what you said... you said that what theyre doing cant be considered salnder, because we cant prove that what they say is true, but if they cant prove what they say is true, then what they say has no substantive value, and cant be considered a message or cause... they have no agenda other than to bother, and have no longterm goals, unlike the majority of protests... they arent doing what theyre doing to protest the war, or to endorse any cause... they are there to terrorize people, plain and simple... they have no message, and thats where im coming from...

I'm sorry if I was unclear. The fact that their message cannot be proven false means that they cannot be sued for slander, as a slander case puts the burden on the slandered to prove what was said is false (which is why, for instance, Tom Cruise never sues anyone over allegations that he's gay in the US). A slander case is also made impossible by the fact that it is legally impossible to slander the dead, execept in very specific circumstances (namely that the suit is brought before the individual died, or that the individual's image is the basis of a trademark, and the slander is thus against a brand). A tort could be brought against the protesters, by the families, on the grounds that the protest caused emotional distress, and other harm, though the case would likely be shaky, due to the precedent in Falwell vs Hustler in which it was ruled that a public figure cannot sue for emotional distress in the absence of slander - the question would be the extent to which the deceased soldier would be considered a public figure, or his death newsworthy.
None of that, however, has any bearing on whether the government can ban the speech in the first place. Any speech is considered protected unless it's obscene, fighting words, explicitly commercial, reveals national secrets, or is intended to incite acts which the government has an interest in regulating. The only one of these exceptions that anyone has claimed these protests fall under is the fighting words doctrine, which was explicitly mentioned in several of the state laws banning such protests. However, the fighting words exception only includes speech which lacks any message, and is therefore unworthy of protection, such as calling someone by a vulgarity. For instance, these people are fucktards, but as that's not really a valid criticism, the government could ban me from going up to them on the street and calling the fucktards "fucktards." The fact that they have a message - anti-war, anti-gay, anti-puppies, it doesn't matter - means that their speech does not fall under the fighting words doctrine.
Finally, any attempt to invoke or pass non-speech-related laws in order to ban such activity - passing new noise ordinances, for instance - would probably also be doomed constitutionally, as such regulation clearly targets one particular message. Content-neutrality is the rule for government restrictions, even indirect ones, on the freedom of expression. Even if the law were written so as to ban all speech, the Courts have, and presumably would, use the legislative record to show that one message was the target of the ban, which, therefore is illegal.
The only legal opening here is if their speech were considered an attempt to intimidate members of a protected class - blacks, jews, mormons, Czechs - in which case hate crime legislation could, in limited circumstances, be applied. As their message is anti-gay, and their intent were to intimidate the gay community, it could be banned, if homosexuality were considered a Carolene group, which it isn't. If Congress wants to do something constructive about this, then, they could pass legislation ordering the federal judiciary to consider homosexuals, and maybe even women, as protected groups under Carolene.

[Generic Poster]

thats not what you said... you said that what theyre doing cant be considered salnder, because we cant prove that what they say is true, but if they cant prove what they say is true, then what they say has no substantive value, and cant be considered a message or cause... they have no agenda other than to bother, and have no longterm goals, unlike the majority of protests... they arent doing what theyre doing to protest the war, or to endorse any cause... they are there to terrorize people, plain and simple... they have no message, and thats where im coming from...

They do have a message - they hate gay people. You don't like the message. You don't have to. It's still protected speech. Feel free to stage a pro-sodomy rally outside their church.

And your argument that only speech that can be proven as substantively true is ridiculous. I can't substantively prove Bush is an asshole, but my right to say I think he is is protected.

[Foolish Mortal]

And lets all keep in mind, that this law does NOT stop people from protesting.

If you want to protest within 400 feet of the cemetery at the time of the funeral, the law won't stop you from doing that.

[classicist]

They do have a message - they hate gay people. You don't like the message. You don't have to. It's still protected speech. Feel free to stage a pro-sodomy rally outside their church.

And your argument that only speech that can be proven as substantively true is ridiculous. I can't substantively prove Bush is an asshole, but my right to say I think he is is protected.

I'd go to that rally.

[Generic Poster]

I'd go to that rally.

We should get it going. Is Phelps based in Kansas?

[NickT]

What constitutional right do you think a temporary cordoning to investigate a crime scene (a legitimate function of the state) infringes on?
If allowed to protest where I want, freedom of speech! You can't stop me standing in a crime scene, I know my rights! ;)

[james michael]

They do have a message - they hate gay people. You don't like the message. You don't have to. It's still protected speech. Feel free to stage a pro-sodomy rally outside their church.

And your argument that only speech that can be proven as substantively true is ridiculous. I can't substantively prove Bush is an asshole, but my right to say I think he is is protected.
i dont have a problem with what they say, because i dont care... i just think they shouldnt be allowed to stand outside cemetery gates and blast out what they say in an attempt to disrupt something considered sacred by almost every person alive...

and youre wrong, they dont say they hate gay people, they say god does, big difference there...

as to the latter of what you said, youre wrong, simply because i never said that, i was simply responding to something else that was said... i dont claim to know the finer points of the law, im stating my opinion of the things i understand...

[xyzzy]

If allowed to protest where I want, freedom of speech! You can't stop me standing in a crime scene, I know my rights! ;)

Assuming that the crime scene is public property, you can protest there all you want as soon as the police are done with their investigation. Interfering with a police investigation is a crime.

[NickT]

And lets all keep in mind, that this law does NOT stop people from protesting.

If you want to protest within 400 feet of the cemetery at the time of the funeral, the law won't stop you from doing that.
Is free speech really an issue when you are still free to speak, albeit a bit further away? And we're not exactly talking a huge distance away, either.

[Jim T.]

If allowed to protest where I want, freedom of speech! You can't stop me standing in a crime scene, I know my rights! ;)

But, but - you're a Brit! You have no such rights, sir! Take your Magna Carta and your fish and chips and begone! Good day, sir!

[McAfee]

Ironically, I'm going to Kansas to inter the ashes of my grandfather-in-law, a WWII vet. I don't think for a second that I would encounter any of these idiots, but have they rallied at any funerals of soldiers not involved in Iraq?

[Jim T.]

Ironically, I'm going to Kansas to inter the ashes of my grandfather-in-law, a WWII vet. I don't think for a second that I would encounter any of these idiots, but have they rallied at any funerals of soldiers not involved in Iraq?

No - God wasn't punishing us then.

[NickT]

Assuming that the crime scene is public property, you can protest there all you want as soon as the police are done with their investigation.
And you can protest all you want outside a cemetary once the funeral is over.

[xyzzy]

And you can protest all you want outside a cemetary once the funeral is over.

INterfering with a police investigation is a crime. Offending people is not.

[McAfee]

No - God wasn't punishing us then.

But I thought Pearl Harbor was basically an attack on the Pacific gay community...:-?

I'm going to have to revisit a history book I guess.

[RebootedCorpse]

And you can protest all you want outside a cemetary once the funeral is over.
that's not how the Constitution works.

[lovewillkill]

While I agree that these protestors are incredibly rude, ignorant and thoughtless people, this legislation is in violation of the Constitution and can only lead to more of our freedoms being taken away.

lwk