ZOMBIE FORUMS

Watching the local 10:00 news I found that my esteemed Republican state senator Mr. Charlie Shields intends to introduce a bill limiting first amendment rights to assembly and free speech. Of course my first reaction would have been to bitch and moan about the damned fascist Christian right-wingers, but because of the nature of the bill I actually find myself unsure of my stance on this issue. It is actually intended to limit the rights of those same fascist Christian right-wingers. Namely everyone's favorite Topeka resident Fred Phelps. Shields' bill is because of an incident where Phelps protested the funeral of a heterosexual soldier in my city. Because he fought for a nation that doesn't murder every homosexual in existance or some crazy BS, Phelps believed that his family didn't deserve to have a peaceful service. A bunch of veteran bikers showed to physically stand between the protesters and the church and use their expertise to drown them out. I missed the whole afair unfortunately.

Shields's bill seeks to limit the right to protest at funerals. Normally any restrictions on first amendment rights seem absolutely abhorant to me, but I also think that protesting a funeral is totally unreasonable. Should Phelp's methods be illegal or does the constitution grant him the right to be a total fuckhead?

Howabout we leave protesting at funerals legal but tell the police to look the other way while I make good use of a homemade, chain-fed, sawedoff shotgun mounted on the sidecar to my motorcycle.

*waves to Labrat*

Could I trouble you for some photographs, good sir?

He threatened to do the same down here for a soldier. He did that until he was pretty much threatened with his life if he showed up.

Phone convo between bikers and him went pretty much like this:

Fred: I'm going to protest your funeral
Bikers: Nope. You aren't going to.
Fred: Yes I will and you can't stop me.
Bikers: How about this: You show up, you won't leave.
Fred: You can't touch me. I'll have you arrested.
Bikers: You can't be arrested if you can't be found.

The police would have helped bury Fred, too. That's Dimmitt Texas for you.

Shield's bill is a good example of what happens when the law loses its foundation in Natural Law (common sense) and morphs into Political Law (made-up or artificial law). It is a useless and meaningless bill because Phelp's actions are already illegal assuming the judges pull their heads out of their arses and interpret the Constitution and the Law as originally intended.

Early American law, including the non-procedural portions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, was largely based on Natural Law, which can be broken down into the two common-sense principles of "Do what you have agreed to do" (contract law) and "Do not encroach upon other people or their property" (criminal/tort law).

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, which includes protests, but it does not mean that anyone has to listen to it, or that the protesters have the right to force their protests onto others, including the disruption of commerce, ceremonies and other legal activities.

So yes, Phelps has the right to protest and this basic right should not be restricted within the legal limits, but active disruption including non-physical aspects such as intolerable noise levels is clearly encroachment and is already not allowed. There is no need for a new law, which would indeed be a potential slippery slope.

----------
As a side note this also extends to rioters and other violent or otherwise disruptive protesters who sometimes try to claim 1st Amendment privilege for their actions. In contrast, marches, non-participation movements, vigils, non-life-or-safety-threatening strikes and other forms of peaceful civil disobedience can be considered laudable ways of making one's point or letting the "authorities" know what the people think, and interference with or suppression of these would in turn be encroachment.

/edit: minor syntax errors and emphasis

As much as I'd like to agree with this, I can't really see it being safe to make a first amendment limitation in response to an event like this. Because it's something we find really really inappropriate, we make a law to restrict one of our most important freedoms (granted, in a pretty minor and specific way) . . . what else might be considered really inappropriate? I can't come up with a really strong objective argument that eliminates the possibility of misuse.

I like KirimaNagi's encroachment argument.

Phelps is odd. He's clearly trying to be as offensive as humanly possible, always upping the level from his last move - is it just for attention? He can't possibly be deranged enough to think these tactics will win converts . . . is there any other explanation for this idiotic behavior?

Since when does acting bat-shit insane become part of the logical thinking process? He's doing nothing more than what the Ku Klux Klan would do on the steps of a captiol building. I'd have to agree with Nagi that the law is already put in, it just has to be enforced correctly.

Actually from watching the video it seems that the Phelpians were standing across the street quietly, so excessive noise was not a problem. The only encroachment they were doing was holding their infamous inflamatory signs and giving statements to the news.

Hm, I had not watched the video, but when you said:

I had thought that it was more of a noisy, disturbance type protest.
Simply holding inflamatory signs (unless they are waving them in your face and impeding progress) and giving statements to the news are not "encroachment".

It's a difficult choice to make because it -is- offensive, but as long as the Phelpians were across the street, quiet, and not actively disturbing things (just passively with their presence), then I still don't see how Shields' bill can be justified. Even in the most limited case, making a law to restrict an otherwise legal behavior just because we find it offensive would be a terrible precedent, especially in a society that is becoming more and more polarized.

It sucks, but I don't recall ever seeing a "right not to be offended".

The only legal measures I can see that would be appropriate in this case would be to establish a "reasonable" buffer distance of say, 30 meters or so (too much could be considered impeding the right to protest), and of course to allow counterprotests such as the veteran bikers.

Would it be unconstitutional to require that protests at least protest functions that are related to the issue they are protesting?

yes, because then it can be totally arbitrary. "You can't picket the White House! What does it have to do with Iraq!"

The problem is that even though restricting the right to protest at a funeral would be understandable, this could snow ball. we're already heading towards less freedoms. this couldn't be a good step.

Eloquently stated.

God I've been in a hole. It seems that My city council passed a local ordinance banning protests at funerals, then the Phelpians came back to protest the ordinance and vow to protest the next funeral of a soldier in my city, be arrested for it, and then sue.

My small town looks like it might be the battle ground for a significant, or at least interesting court case.

Fuck there is even a Freeper thread

Actually, this new law is far scarier.

It bans anonymously "annoying" people over the internet. It's a federal law.

I am afraid I can no longer use teh interweb.

How annoying...

So how can a local ordinance be passed that limits the constitution? Doesn't the constitution overwrite local laws? I thought that was the point.

It can't but local ordinances hardly ever get challenged, because usually the fine is not worth hiring a lawyer. Phelps vows to be arrested and sue at the next funeral of a soldier in St. Joseph, because the city has no right to ban protests.

All we need is some patently offensive sexual conduct in that and we can get their protests declared obscene and therefore unprotected by the first amendment. :D

http://www.joplinindependent.com/display_article.php/hfoster1141247395
The bill passed and was signed by the governor today. Protests are now illegal one hour before and after a feuneral. Phelpians were at the signing.

XD



If I understand this correctly, a law banning peaceful protests of any sort is irrelevant. I might also point out that (a law) protecting funerals in any way shape or form <strike>is</strike> can be argued to be illegal:



The second bold segment is there to emphasize the last point I made. While the protestors may be assholes, I'm pretty sure that the only ways to make their protests illegal are already in place. It would involve either proving that they are causing a disturbance/breaking another law or that they are harassing the funeral-goers. I think harassment is the most likely charge to get through, but it's a very minor one.



Edited for clarification and spelling.