| 
|
Page: Profile: Wren's Nest News Local
| Total Views: 4,940,752
|
Article: 15415
[Civil]
Date Posted:
5/3/2006
1:37:08 pm EDT
Wvox Stats
Views: 8,467
RSS: 17,863
Comments: 21
|
Kansas Lawmakers Settle On Funeral Protest Bill
Author: kctv5.com Source: kctv5.com
Title: KANSAS LAWMAKERS SETTLE ON FUNERAL PROTEST BILL
Kansas lawmakers reached an agreement on a bill that would restrict protests at funerals.
It's in response to the recent protests across the country involving Reverend Fred Phelps and his Topeka-based church.
The Kansas bill outlaws protests within 500 feet of a funeral service, but acknowledges the protests can be conducted in other public spaces.
Now the American Civil Liberties Union is involved in the fight, in support of the church, saying that whether you agree with the church, it's about the freedom of speech.
| Options: [Read Full Story] [Comments Locked]
[Email to a Friend]
|
|
Community Thoughts: There are 21 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| Sigh | May 5th. at 5:04:29 am EDT
|
James F. (Port Arthur, Texas) - Email Me - Web
Of course, the ACLU is a double-edged sword. Anyone who supports these people are nuts. I'm sorry... Did you see Shirley Phelps on Fox? I'll link it.
Find More info -- HERE
|
| Takes One Bad Apple To Spoil Things | May 4th. at 1:56:34 pm EDT
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me
Just because an idiot has the right to call himself god and yell obscenities and gestulate at every passerby in the behavior of a mannerless chimpanzee- still does not give him the right to crash a private party or funeral where he clearly isn't invited or wanted-- and yet this seems to be his main claim to fame.
While there are other laws on the books that could be used, and probably have been, this is one person who finds jail time a sort of martyrdom to his cause. He is not being pushed off public land- he is merely being pushed back, away from the people he delights in harassing. Still, I do agree it is a slippery slope on which we sit with this. What will the next ban bring I wonder? It does place the right to free assembly in serious jeopardy-- thanks to Phelps.
|
| Illegal Prior Restraint And Content Censorship | May 4th. at 1:23:24 pm EDT
|
Terry (Irvington, Virginia) - Email Me
Add "heckler doctrine" to the list of legal mechanisms already available to limit actual disruptions of funerals, and it becomes clear this law is not about actual disruption, within any valid legal meaning. It may be about feelings of disruption some family members or political position advocates experience seeing their preferences challenged, but that's due to the content of speech being regulated. As such, this is very much a 1st Amendment speech content issue, and a political grievance issue as well due to the focus on military policies and government actions using soldiers whose funerals have become stages.
It's easy to view dead troops as war criminals alongside their heavy brass and political bosses, given the nature of the current war to itself be illegal under international law and related US Constitutional incorporation of that law. As such, anyone connected to the wrongful deaths that result, whether to US troops, allied forces, or civilian or military victims of our war of aggression to unseat a political government distasteful to some GOP donors, is a potential serious target for focused political opposition. The easy way to avoid that is to never sign into a military used by our corrupt regime, but once the recruiter lies do result in a signature, accept the consequences. That in some cases imposes those consequences on family, whether due to the highest suicide rate in a US military action, or other causes of deaths (which pale compared to what our troops have done to Iraqis) .
If this new law were designed to regulate disruptive activities rather than amount to illegal prior restraint, it would focus on blocked roads and sidewalks, and other such issues similar to those used to protect access to medical clinics subject to RRR efforts to squash lawful business and access to services by clients. It fails to do so, and instead applies a broad brush to give special privileges to certain religious rituals and favor select political positions, in part by de facto application hidden behind a facial lie. As such, it deserves challenge with ACLU and other civil libertarian support, just as the ACLU has supported despicable hate cultists who limit their cross burning to private property used with permission.
The law itself breaks down when a legislature fails to narrowly distinguish lawful regulation of legally disruptive actions, from protected rights of those it dislikes equally with those it likes, and distinguish emotional reactions which are often the reason our Constitution enumerates the rights it does, from legal definitions of disruption or wrongful actual interference with other's rights.
Would the same protests regulated by this law be lawful at the same space on the same street, with the same conduct and speech, if no funeral were in progress? Much as it's tempting to wish the Phelps' klan ceased to exist, real disruption, and not the content of their speech, needs to be the test for whether these protests qualify as illegal disruptions, versus protected but controversial highly protected protests subject to the highest "strict scrutiny" based legal standards of review.
Another issue this parallels is flag burning. One trashes the meaning of the legal rights for which the US flag stands, once statutes are created to ban burning of flags in safe manners, with real intent to abridge speech rights and little to do with where or how something is burned. Open the slippery slope this law creates, and it might be argued that celebrating the death of a war criminal, ours or theirs, even by passive means such as black or other color arm bands and standing quietly along a road a procession passes, becomes a technical violation of this type of law. That's exactly the kind of nondisruptive "thought crime" our Constitution holds a wrongful violation of citizen rights.
|
| I'm Going To Have To Side With The ACLU Here | May 4th. at 12:24:39 pm EDT
|
John W (Burbank, California) - Email Me
"Freedom of Speech" means just that...freedom of speech, no matter how repugnant what someone's saying might be. To be truly free, freedom of speech must apply not just to peaceful protesters, Pagans, and folks we might like, but also to f*cked-up Neo-Nazi bigots and to nut-jobs like those from this church.
There are other things that can lgeally be done here.
For one, most funeral homes and churches are private property. The owner of said premises have every right to ban these douche-bags from funerals on their property. "Customers" of these institutions should make a point of only doing business with those funeral homes and/or churches that keep such disruptions away from the last rites of their beloved.
When it comes to military cemetaries, I suppose the Government can enforce a reasonable distance ban like they do with those who protest the President, but otherwise, if these disgusting funeral protesters want to be on the property protesting a reasonable distance away (say, 500 feet) , we must let them.
I know, It sucks. But if we truly believe in the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and if we truly believe in the concept of "Freedom of Speech", then we must live not only with its benefits but its shortcomings as well.
Perhaps we ought to give these folks a dose of their own medicine. Perhaps if we went and shouted at mourners of this church's recently deceased, how the person honored at their funeral is going to hell for disrupting the last rites of innocents who died for their country, maybe they might change their tune.
I don't know...two wrongs generally don't make a right, so maybe this isn't such a novel solution...
All I do know is that preserving our freedom is often difficult because sometimes it has consequences that we may not particularly like.
John W.
|
| Use The Laws You Have! | May 3rd. at 11:03:28 pm EDT
|
Stormsinger (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) - Email Me
Rev. Jasper hit the nail on the head. There are already laws which can be used in this case: disturbing the peace, trespassing, and similar city, county or state ordinances surely exist that -- without ever coming close to the issue of free speech -- could curtail ol' Fred's little tirades. There are also avoidance tactics like the motorcycle club that goes to these funerals specifically to form a wall between the funeral and the protest.
Me, I keep advocating turning Fred's protests to our own ends, because I've heard this one has worked before: have someone run a fundraisers for AIDS awareness, Planned Parenthood or any charity that helps the LGBT community. Every minute they're out there is another "X" dollars in the pot. How long do you really think they'll stay when their protests help the very people they vilify? Free speech runs both ways.
|
| I'm With The ACLU | May 3rd. at 10:41:42 pm EDT
|
Ypsiroselee (Ann Arbor, Michigan) - Email Me - Web
Y'know, this idgit and co. are only benefitting from these bans. It means publicity for them, leading to more notoriety for perhaps one of the most moronic campaigns in American history.
I am not comfortable with restricting speech, either, not ever, excluding perhaps shouting fire in a crowding theater, &c.
Besides, when that old goat is finally dragged off to his little christian hell, I want to do some lesbian lip-locking right in front of his family during his burial.
|
| Common Decency | May 3rd. at 6:05:29 pm EDT
|
seely dancer (manchester, New Hampshire) - Email Me
Common decency isn't so common these days.
While I believe in the right to free speech, screaming about the war or terrorism or anything else at a funeral is disrespectful.
Whether or not you agree with the policies that made a soldier die, it is only good manners to let the family grieve as peacefully as they can.
Being a Libertarian, I believe laws are for people with no manners and no ethics. Sadly, the world is crawling those vermin.
|
| Is Malicious Slander A Right? | May 3rd. at 4:05:11 pm EDT
|
Purrl (Lexington, Kentucky) - Email Me
I am all for freedom of speech, but disrupting a solemn ceremony is impeding on the rights of the funeral party to bury their dead as they see fit.
Honestly, if we protect every right, then at some point those rights are going to overlap.
Surely a nice 500 foot distance is the least
respect you can pay the family. Should we protect the rights to slander the dead and ruin a family gathering? Is that really free speech, or deliberate and malicious disruption of a family moment?
Case in point: I have every right to say that someone is a tramp, right? But waiting for them outside their home when their kid is getting off the school bus is just inappropriate and mean-spirited.
|
| Disgusted. | May 3rd. at 2:43:16 pm EDT
|
Amtehuti (Queens, Florida) - Email Me
Ok. Cancelled my membership to the ACLU. Freedom of speech doesn't include terrorizing family members when they put their husbands, sons, and brothers into their graves.
|
| Grave Robber Phelps | May 3rd. at 2:20:18 pm EDT
|
Ahr-Ohn (Bridgeport, Connecticut) - Email Me
Those who use Funerals, to boost their voices, are stealling from the Dead, and should be billed for Royalties. "Billing them at Pike's Point," is a tempting thought, and would be legal.
This would place Phelps in the same Court of Necromancy as the Wiccan whose name waits on an indulgence from Federal City, but the Wiccan's Voice is represented by his duly ordained Widow, and Phelps is merely a Thief.
I hope Phelps lives a long time, but know his avoidance of Equality and True Peace will not last forever. To conquer Death, you only have to die, but it looks like he may have to die many times.
Not everyone who helps you out is a friend, and this 500' limitation may backfire in the future. I think we could do more, to protect ownership of Death Benefits.
Arawn
|
Disclaimer: The Witches' Voice inc does not verify the accuracy of the details stated in this listing, nor do we vouch for the value of the goods or services presented here... As with all contacts and financial dealings in cyberspace, we encourage you to use caution and wisdom in your dealings with strangers.
Political Statements: Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren's Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches' Voice, Inc. TWV is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization.
|
State/Country flags created by 3dflags.com and are used with permission
Web Site Content (including: text - graphics - html - look & feel)
Copyright 1997-2009 The Witches' Voice Inc. All rights reserved
Note: Authors & Artists retain the copyright for their work(s) on this website.
Unauthorized reproduction without prior permission is a violation of copyright laws.
Website structure, evolution and php coding by Fritz Jung on a Macintosh G5.
Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren’s Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches’ Voice, Inc. TWV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization.
Sponsorship: Visit the Witches' Voice Sponsor Page for info on how you
can help support this Community Resource. Donations ARE Tax Deductible.
The Witches' Voice carries a 501(c)(3) certificate and a Federal Tax ID.
Mail Us: The Witches' Voice Inc., P.O. Box 341018, Tampa, Florida 33694-1018 U.S.A.
| |
