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!!

    BangBang

  • Joined: 01-April 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,399
  • Reputation: 1,253
  • LocationArizona
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,073
  • Reputation: 1,997
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 06-May 09
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 116
  • Reputation: 5
HUDDLER

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!!

    BangBang

  • Joined: 01-April 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,399
  • Reputation: 1,253
  • LocationArizona
HUDDLER

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!!

    BangBang

  • Joined: 01-April 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,399
  • Reputation: 1,253
  • LocationArizona
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 06-May 09
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 116
  • Reputation: 5
HUDDLER

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!!

    BangBang

  • Joined: 01-April 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,399
  • Reputation: 1,253
  • LocationArizona
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 6,423
  • Reputation: 1,212
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 04-January 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,283
  • Reputation: 104
HUDDLER

Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

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


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users