Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obama signs unconstitutional law banning protest at Military funerals


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 Awesomeness!

Awesomeness!

    Huddle Smartass

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 08:36 AM

http://www.huffingto..._n_1748454.html

President Barack Obama signed the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 into law on Monday, providing a wide-ranging package of benefits to military personnel and enacting new restrictions on protests of service member funerals.


This is garbage. I hate the Westboro baptist church as much as anybody else, but we can not start doing this.

#2 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,375 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 08:48 AM

I agree this is another "slippery slope" when restricting protests. I think however it might be okay if not banning them, but just keeping them at arms length. I would think it might be a public safety issue if not addressed. Many emotions are raw and exposed at funerals and I would think it only a push or shove away from big time incident.

However, I sort of agree with you on the starting of this kind of stuff. Free speech should not be silenced. If we head down this road, then other protests will also be "moved" to other locations and such.

#3 Kognan

Kognan

    Barbarian Representative

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 08:50 AM

Not sure it a problem as they are limiting the proximity.. “Under the new legislation, protests must be held at least 300 feet from military funerals and are prohibited two hours before or after a service.”

This way family members don’t have a “Pray for more dead soldiers” sign stuck in their face after walking away from the grave site.

#4 Awesomeness!

Awesomeness!

    Huddle Smartass

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 08:50 AM

I agree this is another "slippery slope" when restricting protests. I think however it might be okay if not banning them, but just keeping them at arms length. I would think it might be a public safety issue if not addressed. Many emotions are raw and exposed at funerals and I would think it only a push or shove away from big time incident.

However, I sort of agree with you on the starting of this kind of stuff. Free speech should not be silenced. If we head down this road, then other protests will also be "moved" to other locations and such.


I agree, but I don't see what "keeping them at an arms length" does. Everytime I see a video clip of the WBC, they are usually behind a fence, or a public street, well within their rights. That should be the end of it.

#5 Awesomeness!

Awesomeness!

    Huddle Smartass

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 08:52 AM

Not sure it a problem as they are limiting the proximity.. “Under the new legislation, protests must be held at least 300 feet from military funerals and are prohibited two hours before or after a service.”

This way family members don’t have a “Pray for more dead soldiers” sign stuck in their face after walking away from the grave site.


Still Unconstitutional. If it gets out of hand, the police are authorized to be there to calm the situation down. Otherwise, the Government has no right to tell them they can't protest.

#6 Kognan

Kognan

    Barbarian Representative

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 08:58 AM

Still Unconstitutional. If it gets out of hand, the police are authorized to be there to calm the situation down. Otherwise, the Government has no right to tell them they can't protest.



I think it’s obvious that the government didn’t say you can’t protest. Only do it from a respectful distance.

Their rights to protest should not infringe on the mourners rights to an unmolested service.

#7 Awesomeness!

Awesomeness!

    Huddle Smartass

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:02 AM

I think it’s obvious that the government didn’t say you can’t protest. Only do it from a respectful distance.

Their rights to protest should not infringe on the mourners rights to an unmolested service.


They already do. As long as they're not on private property they can do whatever they want.

#8 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,954 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:08 AM

I agree, but I don't see what "keeping them at an arms length" does. Everytime I see a video clip of the WBC, they are usually behind a fence, or a public street, well within their rights. That should be the end of it.


Actually they form up prior to funerals and berate loved ones trying to get through the crowd to attend the service quite often. (edit: or used to - they may not do this anymore, so I shouldn't say it so definitively)

They are a problem, which is why some counter-protests have arise to block them from areas.

Another thing is that they are almost always in close enough proximity to shout loud enough to be heard during the ceremony. IMO, that is why this law has some sense (even if not constitutionally, which will probably get it booted), and it is restricted. As long as the actual right to assembly near funerals is not being destroyed, just pushed back slightly, I think that is fine. My opinion is that family members of service personnel who die in the line of duty should be allowed to have a ceremony that is uninterrupted by protests.

They already do. As long as they're not on private property they can do whatever they want.


In my opinion, there are certain circumstances in which "doing whatever they want" needs to be slightly restricted.

However, that being said, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this law gets struck down.

#9 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:16 AM

This is no more an infringement on the first amendment than the restriction of yelling fire in a crowded theater is.

Your right to free speech ends when it becomes a real danger to the well being of others.

#10 Panthers128

Panthers128

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,283 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

Insulting someone isn't a danger to their well being.

#11 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,998 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:59 AM

Insulting someone isn't a danger to their well being.


intentionally instigating violence is.

#12 Tarheel31

Tarheel31

    cynical pessimist

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 10:06 AM

Free speech should not be silenced. If we head down this road, then other protests will also be "moved" to other locations and such.


They already are, they have the nerve to set up "free speech zones" at the conventions and the police actually enforce this, just like they are told.

I thought AMERICA was a free speech zone, now you have to go into a fence out in some vacant parking lot do say what you think.

And the people that are listeneing to you there... you DAMN sure don't want their attention.

They will put your name right into a "potential terrorist" list and then can can scoop you up and detailn you indefinatly without trial or charges.

AMERICA! FUG YEAH!

#13 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 10:38 AM

I agree this is another "slippery slope" when restricting protests. I think however it might be okay if not banning them, but just keeping them at arms length. I would think it might be a public safety issue if not addressed. Many emotions are raw and exposed at funerals and I would think it only a push or shove away from big time incident.

However, I sort of agree with you on the starting of this kind of stuff. Free speech should not be silenced. If we head down this road, then other protests will also be "moved" to other locations and such.


It's not a "slippery slope." It's at the bottom of the hill. This is flat-out unethical. The 1st amendment exists to protect unpopular opinions, not ones everyone agrees with.

#14 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,998 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 11:39 AM

It's not a "slippery slope." It's at the bottom of the hill. This is flat-out unethical. The 1st amendment exists to protect unpopular opinions, not ones everyone agrees with.



constitutional and ethical are not mutually inclusive. It's perfectly ethical to ban these people. It would probably be ethical to drop them off a cliff... Constitutional though? difficult.

#15 Panthers128

Panthers128

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,283 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 11:49 AM

constitutional and ethical are not mutually inclusive. It's perfectly ethical to ban these people. It would probably be ethical to drop them off a cliff... Constitutional though? difficult.


I guess ethics are subjective.

Some military members kill people. I've never heard of any Westboro baptist church members killing anyone. But we're told the military is defending our freedom while the WBC is trolling people. I'd rather be trolled by the WBC than killed by the military.

I don't hate the military, but any time you do a job that controversial, you can't expect people not to speak out against it. Ideally the people would be tactful, but many humans are far from civilized.

I don't think the WBC is even serious. They do it for the money in donations and the publicity. The media is the reason they continue to do their protests.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.