| 
|
Page: Profile: Wren's Nest News Local
| Total Views: 4,943,966
|
Article: 19005
[Civil]
Date Posted:
12/7/2007
4:54:27 pm EST
Wvox Stats
Views: 6,429
RSS: 15,116
Comments: 19
|
8th Circuit: Mo. Funeral-Protest Law Should Be On Hold
Author: The Associated Press Source: First Amendment Center Online
Title: 8TH CIRCUIT: MO. FUNERAL-PROTEST LAW SHOULD BE ON HOLD
A federal appeals court said yesterday that a Missouri state law limiting protests near funerals should have been put on hold while a judge determines whether it's constitutional.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis threw out a district court judge's decision denying the request for a temporary injunction of the law from a Kansas church that regularly protests at soldiers' funerals.
Church member Shirley Phelps-Roper filed suit in July 2006, seeking to have the statute declared an unconstitutional infringement on her First Amendment right of free speech. She also sought preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Attorney General Jay Nixon and Gov. Matt Blunt from enforcing the law.
The unanimous three-judge panel said yesterday, “We conclude Phelps-Roper has a fair chance of proving any interest the state has in protecting funeral mourners from unwanted speech is outweighed by the First Amendment right to free speech.”
| Options: [Read Full Story] [Comments Locked]
[Email to a Friend]
|
|
Community Thoughts: There are 19 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| Ahh The Irony Though! | Dec 10th. at 5:45:43 am EST
|
Medicine Feather The Traveller (Fort Collins, Washington) - Email Me
Let's say it was a bunch of Muslims doing exactly the same thing. What do you think they'd do then? Probably have the Feds all over em along with Homeland Security, a bomb squad and a terrorism alert and you can bet they'd all be put away.
This has gotten out of hand. I don't care if they think this is a matter of free speech. Get right down to it, a funeral is a religious ceremony, and them doing this is impeding that. Yes, they are allowed their civil liberties, but one person's civil rights are not allowed to impede on another's. That's exactly what these people are doing. Also, they are openly discriminating against a monority, which amounts to a hate crime if you ask me. What if they were protesting about how our soldiers are dying because the country supports Blacks? Hispanics? Jews? Would that be OK? I don't think so.
Just my humble opinion...lol
Lovin you, Family!
Feather ) O (
|
| I Would Say What I Really Think... | Dec 9th. at 11:56:16 pm EST
|
Reaver (Lebanon, Oregon) - Email Me
But if I did, I would probably be banned from commenting ever again! I have been a warrior for this country for 21 years. Those who fight and die deserve respect, not people desecrating their graves for their own twisted agenda. Most US citizens never leave the US, and yet believe they know all there is to know about the world. If they ever experience it, they will know why we work to keep the US safe.
The veteran - we watch the treeline while the rest dance around the fire. We are the reason they can.
|
| Where Do You Draw The Line? | Dec 9th. at 4:21:43 pm EST
|
Brighid (Monroe, Georgia) - Email Me
According to the court filed document Phelps-Roper v Nixon, Phelps-Roper stated funerals, including military, are the "only place" they believe their "religious message can be delivered in a timely and relevant manner." (Phelps-Roper v. Nixon no. 07-1295)
By law, they can assemble together peacefully and state what they believe calling it freedom of speech. Anyone who is willing to stop and listed can. The filed document had an interesting comment about the funeral attendees being a "captive audience." They lose the ability to choose whether or not to listen. Who is going to walk away from a funeral to avoid listening to another group's point of views? If I cannot walk away to avoid it, is not my freedom of speech and religion being affected? Why should I have to go to them and ask them to stop or even engage them in any way?
The military funerals are garnering more publicity than non-military funerals but some are religiously handled. A priest or minister may be presiding over the funeral itself. Does that not tromp all over their religious freedoms to practice as they believe?
The freedoms need to work both ways so where do you draw the line and not destroy the first amendment?
|
| Rights Do Not Come Without Responsibilities. | Dec 8th. at 6:19:00 pm EST
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me
I do agree with the right to protest, and peaceful assembly, however, I also agree that having rights also comes with responsibilities which do not grant cart blanche to any individual seeking to run rough shod over his fellows or to cause unnecessary pain and anguish without regards to their feelings -or to misuse the right to protest by wrongfully slandering or libeling individuals, no matter what their station. And what Phelps is doing- is hardly peaceful. He could almost be construed to be a sort of cowardlyTerrorist with his tactics.
Banning them from certain areas does not end their right to protest, but it does strike a chord for common decency, whether the target of their attack was a soldier- or not- or whether the person in question was Gay or not. The familes of the dead have a right to grieve in private and to bury their dead in a decent manner without having someone-anyone strange coming in to demean them for no real reason-except to make a point for themselves at the expense of those unable to fight back.
When Phelps finally departs, may he find the farewell ceremony he so richly deserves, at the hands of those he hated so much.
|
| Clear Right To Meaningful Protest | Dec 8th. at 4:09:54 pm EST
|
Terry (Irvington, Virginia) - Email Me
There is a clear First Amendment right to meaningful political protest in public locations, and that necessarily includes near funerals related to an illegal war in which many US troops have acted as war criminals. Honest troops actually serving our country and upholding their oaths to defend against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, would have long ago taken out Bush and many others directing war crimes and civil rights violations through the chain of command. That leaves most troops who receive military funerals legitimate targets of harsh political criticism, and family and friends pretending those disgusting embarrassments to our nation deserve tribute also legitimate targets of criticism. Such political grievance expression is among the most highly protected Constitutional rights, which those same troops had the obligation to enforce.
Whether what the Phelps klan does in their obnoxious dog and pony shows is such clear political grievance expression may be suspect. "gawd hates fags" is nonsensical and a psychotic expression of dogma, not necessarily recognizable as a meaningful political message. It's a tricky line to distinguish nonsensical speech content alleged to be political, from highly protected speech, though courts have regularly found the ramblings of drunks and other wackos to not enjoy the same protections when espoused in a disorderly and disruptive manner in public places, as rational and meaningful political expression, controversial or popular.
Therein lies one possible judicial response I might favor in at least some cases of local attempts to regulate the Westboro Baptist lawyer cult out of its misery. Laws banning protests, including those falling within explicit 1st Am. protections based on established case law, including that which protects all ages nude speech where otherwise restricted, or "Fvck the Draft" style retorts among all ages audiences (eg, Cohen or Hess case law) , are clearly unConstitutional laws of illegally broad construction. To declare that funerals are off limits for protests additionally takes sides over religious and cultural prejudices which may be common, but are not universal among Americans. However, such defective protest censorship laws can be overturned, while still holding that the Phelps fags are lunatics off their meds, and are not presenting a rational political message entitled to those protections. That would be consistent with other case law, and enable criminal arrests of the Phelps operatives while still upholding the US Constitution.
Now, about those war crimes and domestic abridgements of rights.... Who's ready to use military funerals to stage Bush regime operatives hung in effigy for the TV cameras, coupled with focused working of media to encourage trials at the Hague for some and domestic prosecution or execution of others, as legal Constitutionally defined or recognized defenses against domestic enemies that soldiers being buried have aided and abetted? An additional focused political message could be added for future targets of recruiter lies and Dominionist fraud to conspire in Bush regime crimes. It is honorable to support and uphold the rule of Constitutional law, but far from it to wear a uniform and profit at taxpayer expense to conspire in what this regime has done. There is no honor or respect deserved in military funerals of such fallen criminal conspirators.
If the Phelps' were in fact conveying such a relevant political message, even they would deserve the full protections of Constitutional law for that message, regardless of controversy over how it was peacefully delivered.
|
| They Need To Realize... | Dec 8th. at 3:40:33 am EST
|
Rhiannon Dragonraine (St. Robert, Colorado) - Email Me
Being a military wife, I have to say that I think these nit-wits need to realize that these laws are as much for their protection as the mourners, grief can make a person a little unstable I know it would for me, and well you add people yelling hateful things and telling me something about my husband, whom they didn't know would more than likely make me go off- so perhaps someone should explain to them that the "buffer zone" isn't only a good idea for the mourners but for their safety as well.
I think that it is atrocious that they do this and if they are so ungrateful of the rights that soldiers uphold for them then they should forfeit them. At some point civility and keeping the peace must be a reason in these laws. I know that some states have laws against inciteful hate speech- wouldn't this be construed as such? that is the one thing (other than slander- oh and libel being that they write it on signs) that I have always wondered about. I know I would be tempted to do physical harm if they showed up but I hope that good sense would prevail and I would just sue them for libel and slander instead.
I am saddened for the families that have had to put up with them, sickened at the message they spew, and heartened by the people that seek to help the families. Although the phrase- if you don't like the country that much- leave comes to mind where they are concerned. oh and when the old man kicks the bucket I will gladly participate in protest at his funeral-wonder how fast they will try to sue or complain that their rights have ben trampled by such an event?
|
| They May Have The Right To Protest | Dec 7th. at 11:56:44 pm EST
|
Lynette (Roanoke, Virginia) - Email Me
but at one of the places they protested, the local school bus drivers just parked their buses between the Westboro slime and the church...Another town had the local pipe band drown them out... the Patriot Guard Riders will go to any funeral they're invited to and place their big noisy motorcycles between the family and the slime.
It warms my heart to see regular citizens doing what they can for these families...
The slime was threatening to protest the funerals of some of the Virginia Tech victims, but someone talked them out of it. Good thing. I don't think the Hokie Nation would have taken that lying down - and VT is an engineering school! Goddess knows what they would have come up with!
|
| Oh And One More Thing | Dec 7th. at 11:54:57 pm EST
|
Lori Dake (Chicago, Illinois) - Email Me
When ole boy Phelps kicks the bucket, how many people do you think will be standing in line to urinate on his grave? There might even be a couple #2's involved.
|
| To Be Honest... | Dec 7th. at 11:52:12 pm EST
|
Lori Dake (Chicago, Illinois) - Email Me - Web
I'm really surprised none of those people have been murdered themselves over the crap they're pulling. And I'm also willing to bet they'd be hard pressed to find a sympathetic jury anywhere in the country, since their hatred crosses all boundaries.
Has anyone seen that documentary "America's Most Hated Family"? There's one scene where a passing motorist smacked a fountain drink at the group, smacking a little boy in the head with it. I felt sorry for the kid, because he genuinely does not understand why anyone would do that to him - he's only going by what his family is telling him is the right thing to do. However, had that struck one of the adults, I would have been wetting my pants with laughter!
Find More info -- HERE
|
| ... | Dec 7th. at 9:41:44 pm EST
|
Gray Fox (Albuquerque, New Mexico) - Email Me
Check this: If the Phelps clan protest at the funeral of a soldier and call that soldier "a fag soldier" (referencing their warped view of homosexuality) and that soldier was NOT gay, I think the family should sue those simpltons for slander. It is slander, after all to call someone a homosexual when they're not. Especially if it is meant in a derogatory way. Well isn't it? Well Hell, I can dream right?
My own solution? KHARMA ALERT!!!!
When Old Fred there finally shuffles off this mortal coil, who wants to join me and some of my military friends as we protest HIS funeral. No loud speeches, no harassment, no intruding on their grief; just a HUGE sign with a pic of Fred bent over in front of the "South Park" Satan with a caption that reads "Fred Phelps, Home at Last".
I've been working on it for about a year now...
Blessed Be All
Gray Fox
|
| Captive Audience? | Dec 7th. at 9:21:54 pm EST
|
Lasombra (Columbus, Ohio) - Email Me
"Phelps-Roper presents a viable argument that those who protest or picket at or near a military funeral wish to reach an audience which can only be addressed at such occasion and to convey to and through such an audience a particular message," the court wrote in Phelps-Roper v. Nixon.
It is interesting that a day or so ago there was an article on captive audiences. Granted the correlation is slight. Employers might not be allowed to preach their views on religion or politics to a captive audience. The employees have to be there and do not deserve to be forced a message they do not want to here. The same thing with these funeral protests. If I am mourning a loved one I should not be subjected to a forced message.
The whole essence is that there is a time and a place for certain messages. For example, protesting a funeral (in the Phelps manner) is the equivalent (IMO) of showing hard core porn on primetime National television. Speech is free but, there are protections from speech of others. Someone who dislikes me is not allowed by law to go around town slandering me…it might be their free speech to say whatever horrible thing about me. I would classify the Phelps and their protest as slander (calling an innocent solder horrible untrue names) and not free speech.
The audience might be there but it does not mean that they should be forced to listen to a unwanted message. Free speech also protect these people which, is why the Freedom Riders ride.
There is also the idea of “peaceful” protest. Are these people being peaceful when they protest the funeral of solders?
BB
Lasombra
|
| (none) | Dec 7th. at 7:03:40 pm EST
|
Llunmere (Germantown Hills, Illinois) - Email Me
Unfortunately, you can't make people have tact.
|
| Where Are They Assembling? | Dec 7th. at 6:01:30 pm EST
|
Shadowbear (Hillsboro, Oregon) - Email Me
If the funeral is in a church or funeral home, they don't have the right to be on private property. If the burial is in a private cemetary the same holds. The right of free speech and assembly refers to public property so that should control whether their right continues through the funeral or not. If they are outside, on public property I would have to fall on the side of free speech & assembly - I will say the you never have the right to go on private property against the owner's wishes for any reason. I am glad that these people believe in hell - because then the creator can put them there for what they are doing.
|
| I Hate To Say This, But..... | Dec 7th. at 5:55:19 pm EST
|
Riding A Pale Horse (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) - Email Me
it doesn't violate the rights gauranteed by the Constitution. The law does not prohibit the peaceful gathering nor the free speech of these people, they merely need to do it within certain time periods and distances, and the Constitution gives no inherent protection of those things.
|
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.
| |
