Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

Obama signs unconstitutional law banning protest at Military funerals


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
57 replies to this topic

#49 Kognan

Kognan

    Barbarian Representative

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

Posted 09 August 2012 - 04:03 PM

300 feet and 2 hours before during and after the service. In other words, they aren't allowed to deliver their message to the people they wish to at all.

This is a precedent now. Good luck protesting before during or after political conventions or speeches. You might inflict emotional distress on them.



Right, the 2 hour limit before and after applies to the 300 feet distance. They can still stand 301 feet and scream all they want.

Basically, it doesn’t ban the protesting of funerals but rather bans protesting at them.

#50 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • Joined: 20-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,765
  • Reputation: 49
HUDDLER

Posted 09 August 2012 - 04:14 PM

Right, the 2 hour limit before and after applies to the 300 feet distance. They can still stand 301 feet and scream all they want.

Basically, it doesn’t ban the protesting of funerals but rather bans protesting at them.


Textbook doublespeak.

"You're allowed to speak your mind. Just as long as you let the government control when and where you do it."

#51 Kognan

Kognan

    Barbarian Representative

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

Posted 09 August 2012 - 05:11 PM

Textbook doublespeak.

"You're allowed to speak your mind. Just as long as you let the government control when and where you do it."


Really? Exactly how close should the protesters be allowed to get to a funeral service?

You guys are all about rights for freedom of speech but nothing, zero rights for the mourners.

I believe apposing protesters have had similar restrictions placed on them while protesting at Westboro Baptist Church but the church members cried foul as they were holding a "prayer service". So these protesters were limited in distance as well.

#52 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,955
  • Reputation: 2,713
HUDDLER

Posted 09 August 2012 - 07:00 PM

Holy crap people, read the law please!

All it does is make distance restrictions, not unlike any other city in this country. Go to any city and file a parade or gathering permit and they will tell you where you must remain, how long the permit is good for and sometimes even restricts the number of people.

http://privacysos.org/node/763
In May the city adopted a temporary ordinance that will clamp down on protests in dozens of blocks near the Tampa Convention Center. Among other things, the ordinance requires a permit for groups of 50 or more to gather in parks; sets a limit of 90 minutes on parades; and bans an array of items, including glass bottles, aerosol cans and pieces of rope longer than six feet. It also provided for an official parade route for protesters along with viewing areas.

http://www.nytimes.c...ntion-security-
draw-criticism.html?pagewanted=all
In both cities, people organizing protests have criticized the areas as being too far from the action, too restrictive and not particularly comfortable or conducive for expressing opinion to the people attending the convention, although city officials say the areas and the permitting process meet legal standards for such public expression developed after protests in other cities.
Michael Zytkow of Occupy Charlotte said the security zone covers “every part of Uptown that anyone would normally walk through.” And the area set aside for the “free speech zone” is so remote, “we’re calling it a parking lot tour,” he said.

In the interest of fair reporting, you'll notice that both political parties are restricting areas for protests and parades during their respective conventions.

And...the justification for such restrictions are pointed out for those who care to read, the third being the operative clause in this case.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm
Three general first amendment principles guide departmental decision making in controlling public protest.

First, political speech in traditional public forums, such as streets and parks, is afforded a very high level of first amendment protection, and blanket prohibitions of such speech are generally unconstitutional.

Second, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such speech are permissible if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interests, and leave ample alternative ways for the speech to occur.

Third, speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass.

#53 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,573
  • Reputation: 3,647
HUDDLER

Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:58 PM

But my freedumbs...

#54 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,299
  • Reputation: 5,458
HUDDLER

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:54 PM

Holy crap people, read the law please!

All it does is make distance restrictions, not unlike any other city in this country. Go to any city and file a parade or gathering permit and they will tell you where you must remain, how long the permit is good for and sometimes even restricts the number of people.

http://privacysos.org/node/763
In May the city adopted a temporary ordinance that will clamp down on protests in dozens of blocks near the Tampa Convention Center. Among other things, the ordinance requires a permit for groups of 50 or more to gather in parks; sets a limit of 90 minutes on parades; and bans an array of items, including glass bottles, aerosol cans and pieces of rope longer than six feet. It also provided for an official parade route for protesters along with viewing areas.

http://www.nytimes.c...ntion-security-
draw-criticism.html?pagewanted=all
In both cities, people organizing protests have criticized the areas as being too far from the action, too restrictive and not particularly comfortable or conducive for expressing opinion to the people attending the convention, although city officials say the areas and the permitting process meet legal standards for such public expression developed after protests in other cities.
Michael Zytkow of Occupy Charlotte said the security zone covers “every part of Uptown that anyone would normally walk through.” And the area set aside for the “free speech zone” is so remote, “we’re calling it a parking lot tour,” he said.

In the interest of fair reporting, you'll notice that both political parties are restricting areas for protests and parades during their respective conventions.

And...the justification for such restrictions are pointed out for those who care to read, the third being the operative clause in this case.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm
Three general first amendment principles guide departmental decision making in controlling public protest.

First, political speech in traditional public forums, such as streets and parks, is afforded a very high level of first amendment protection, and blanket prohibitions of such speech are generally unconstitutional.

Second, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such speech are permissible if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interests, and leave ample alternative ways for the speech to occur.

Third, speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass.


The fact that there's precedent isn't an actual comfort.

#55 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,955
  • Reputation: 2,713
HUDDLER

Posted 10 August 2012 - 05:45 AM

The fact that there's precedent isn't an actual comfort.


You're right. Why not simply allow the protestors to stand graveside, right next to the widow and the family?

Gee, how have I gotten through life not thinking as simply as this.

#56 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,299
  • Reputation: 5,458
HUDDLER

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:38 PM

You're right. Why not simply allow the protestors to stand graveside, right next to the widow and the family?

Gee, how have I gotten through life not thinking as simply as this.

That's... not public property. But an excellent strawman.

#57 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,955
  • Reputation: 2,713
HUDDLER

Posted 10 August 2012 - 08:23 PM

That's... not public property. But an excellent strawman.


You're right, so what are you complaining about again? The fact you cannot protest on private property?

You can't play the strawman card when you have yet to present a viable argument except to say, "That's not fair!"

#58 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,195
  • Reputation: 1,567
HUDDLER

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:03 PM

Not sure how I feel about this one. There are some valid points on both sides. They are basically making some minor adjustments to rules that are already in place, but those adjustments could end up being a cause for concern.

That being said, if some father beat the crap out of Phelps during one of these protest, I wouldn't blame him a bit. I would hope that any punishment for the offense would be the minimum possible under the law. The Phelps crowd is despicable.