Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Shirley Phelps-Roper
Topic Started: Sep 25 2007, 02:10 PM (1,522 Views)
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
Fat people are an identifiable group. Should I be banned from saying "fat people go to hell?"

Does it matter if I'm at a funeral? :D

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Republicans have their pet "protected groups", just like Dems have theirs. They aren't any different in that regard, it's just a matter who you dislike.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
Not really. What group that represents a constituency have the republicans tried to protect with anti-free speech laws. Because certainly, racial minorities, a majority of women, and homosexuals aren't really republican backers. And I know the likely response is, "but the patriot act..." Well that may have some chilling effect on what anti- US government groups might say, but it isn't a direct law punishing speech.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Soldiers for one, a fav of the Reps. They're "protected" under the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act".
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
Well it doesn't regulate the content of the speech. Time, place, and manner regulations, neutral of content, have always had a place in American jurisprudence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

It most certainly does regulate the content of the speech. The Act itself is meant to "prohibit certain demonstrations". It specifically prevents any sort of demonstration "unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or the director of the property on which the cemetery is located". Thus, the content of the speech is subject to the approval of a federal official.

Now, there's an "or" as well, covering the usual distance rules as well as a time rule. I have little doubt these will be selectively enforced, as I'm sure anyone "giving support" will be allowed to carry on. We'll see, though.

Note the contents of Section 4:

Quote:
 
It is the sense of Congress that each State should enact legislation
to restrict demonstrations near any military funeral.


So, the notion that this law is content-neutral is disingenuous.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Actually, don't even have to wait. Shows of support are apparently proceeding unimpeded. So much for content neutral.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Typical Americans.

Arguing not if it should be done, but if it can.

Damn customs laws that insist I must spend at least 48 hours in your country to reap the benefits of your ever-declining dollar.

Fat people are no more of an "identifiable" group than pretty people are, Henry.

As for this:


Quote:
 
Except speech does not involve swinging anything. "Hurt feelings" exceptions to free speech are pernicious, but all the rage in the ever increasingly PC world. This case is a good example of that.



If speech has no swing or power to it, then free speech wouldn't be such a hot topic. Your interest in this subject has completely negated your above insistence that speech is unimportant.


Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
Actually that act only covers Arlington National Cemetary or other Federal cemetaries. And just includes language encouraging state legislatures to pass similar laws.

a demonstration on the property of a cemetery under
the control of the National Cemetery Administration or on the
property of Arlington National Cemetery unless the demonstration
has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or the director of the property on which the cemetery is located; or

As far as the word "certain" demonstrations. That doesn't refer to content, but I understand that a non-legally trained mind might think so. In legislation that is an often used phrase to give the legally trained reader a cue that later on in the law a term, in this case, "demonstration" will be defined in detail.

(B) Demonstration.--For purposes of this section, the term demonstration' includes the following:
``(1) Any picketing or similar conduct.
``(2) Any oration, speech, use of sound amplification
equipment or device, or similar conduct that is not part of a
funeral, memorial service, or ceremony.
``(3) The display of any placard, banner, flag, or similar
device, unless such a display is part of a funeral, memorial
service, or ceremony.
``(4) The distribution of any handbill, pamphlet, leaflet,
or other written or printed matter other than a program
distributed as part of a funeral, memorial service, or
ceremony.''

Now as to the approval requirement. If the government starts approving certain demonstrations, but denying others, that will be a disparate treatment and be proof of content censorship. The Supreme Court allows everything to be excluded, as long as nothing is given special treatment.

As far as the Freedom Riders go. They only go to funerals when invited by families. THUS, making their activity a part of the funeral or ceremony, because the family and deceased decide what they want part of their relatives funeral. And they are only really active in states that haven't passed these laws protecting the families of fallen soldiers.

They used to have a presence in Iowa, but since the passage of the law they haven't been here to my knowledge. The bill requires protestors to remain at least 500 feet away from any funeral service or ceremony.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Of course speech has power, but it's not a physical attack. Thus, cases of speech hurting someone's feelings and nothing else are arbitrary, relying as they do on both the claimants word that there is any effect and that those particular words caused it. It's simply a way to punish someone for saying something one doesn't like, and as such strikes at the heart of free speech.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lea
Unregistered

Christ this fucking discussion gets on my last real tit.


Freedom of speech is not the only freedom. Those people have a right to bury their loved ones in peace. That's THERE right.


I'm so sick of friggin "it's freedom of speech.. freedom of speech" and no accountablity or respect for what that entails. Your right to freedom does not mean you can encrouch upon another's righ to freedom.

Words matter. They mean[/]mean and as Wes pointed out, if they didn't, then there would be no point to discussing free speech.

AS for "well only feelings got hurt". Whilst you might live in an emotional vaccum Plague, unfortunately, the rest of us do not. Hurt feelings are more profoudly damaging and lasting then physical hurts. And they are left there by "words", not actings, words. And they stay there long after any outside trauma has healed.











Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Which means that it's a demonstration and containing a political message of "support". This makes it not content-neutral, with the work-around being the sanction of the demonstration by the family. Furthermore, the very nature of a military funeral often has various government-sanctioned demonstrations (21 gun salute, etc). This is likewise content, and it is not neutral. The government has made it a crime to demonstrate in any other way, as a counter-argument to their own propaganda at such events.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Those people did bury their loved ones in peace. The protesters were 1000' away, completely out of sight and earshot. This would meet the criteria of even the idiotic Respect Act. So, this meets the "in peace" right.

Instead, the family learned of the content of the protest afterwards, and claimed this was damaging. The jury in that case obviously didn't like the speech used, and decided to punish the protesters. This is why it is a free-speech issue.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
no plague, here's what you don't grasp. The government is not regulating the content of the speech, the family is. As stated, funerals are not considered a public or semi-public forum. ALL demonstrations are prohibited, UNLESS the family makes the decision to include some type of group, such as the Freedom Riders a part of their funeral. Or, if Cindy Sheehan's other son died in Iraq, she would be free to invite MoveOn.org, or any other group to march as a part of her son's funeral. It's not the government, it is the family, which is not a government actor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
And Lea, you could be a judge.

"You must balance the defendants' expression of religious belief with another citizen's right to privacy," U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett instructed jurors Tuesday
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Yes, the family is regulating speech on government property, and even near government property in the public space, to advocate their own pro-government/pro-military agenda on the taxpayers dime. That's regulating content, where dissenters are silenced and supporters are enabled. That is not content-neutral.

An official function such as a "military funeral" is necessarily a political event. There can be 21-gun salutes, or jet fly-bys, or processions complete with honor guards of military or non-military origin through public streets. As such, stifling dissenting opinions either through pernicious laws barring them or outrageous civil penalties when the laws are followed has a non-neutral chilling effect on free speech. This is blatant propaganda, but quite fitting with the support the troops political idea.

It's a terrible loss for the family, as is any loss of a loved one. If the sanctity of funerals were really foremost in mind, then why is the federal law and most of the hastily passed state laws limited to military funerals? This is obviously targeted censorship, not to protect families in their time of grief but rather to maintain the false shine of government workers dying doing their jobs. It's propaganda, pure and simple.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lea
Unregistered

ErgonomicLogic
Nov 6 2007, 03:18 AM
And Lea, you could be a judge.

"You must balance the defendants' expression of religious belief with another citizen's right to privacy," U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett instructed jurors Tuesday

Well you do.

Freedom isn't really freedom if you're walking all over another persons rights because of your own rights. That's not freedom.. for either of you.


Freedom of speech comes with a responsiblity. In this particularly instance, in this particularly family, it would appear that "responsiblity" of word and action and the consequenting hurt suffered by those it is directed to, is not something they are mature enough to handle.


What kind of a family shows up to someone elses funeral and speels hate messages? What kind of a family would take anothers families weakest and most painful moment and twist the knife in. What kind of mother would do that to another? Without empathy or remorse.


Oh but she has the right to her precious freedom of speech.


Pity the families rights seem to have been forgotten here.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
so a blanket ban to keep funerals used for their traditional purpose is propaganda, just like how keeping VA hospitals running up to human decency norms is propaganda. Ok. You win.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ConfusedMonkey
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Quote:
 
Fat people are no more of an "identifiable" group than pretty people are, Henry.


Well.. you can be recognised as clinically overweight by medical tests. Whether or not someone is attractive is down to personal opinion. Or "hotornot.com", perhaps.
There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
Weren't the protests conducted immediately outside the cemetary, and therefore not on the private grounds themselves?

I'd be interested to know what happens when one of the Westboro baptists dies - particularly Mr Phelps himself. Thousands of people with signs, I would imagine.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply