NationStates Jolt Archive

The restriction is that protests may not be mounted within 500' of a funeral for an hour before and an hour after the funeral without permission of the cemetary director.

That's it. It simply protects the funeral service, nothing more, nothing less.

You are aware that Phelps will simply wait for an hour and a minute to go to the familie's HOMES and protest, right? And I say that even if ALL funerals are protected, about, say, gay funerals.

Here is how we view this dilemma in Europe.



If there is disagreement on whether the right is being curtailed too much, a court decides. Not the legislative, or head of state. Proportionality is an issue, and so is equality before the law.

The same in the United States. All laws are subject to judicial review. It is the role of the courts, and none other, to decide whether a law fits within the framework of the constitution.

The same in the United States. All laws are subject to judicial review. It is the role of the courts, and none other, to decide whether a law fits within the framework of the constitution.
Judicial review is good4u. So is the checks'n balance system.

You are aware that Phelps will simply wait for an hour and a minute to go to the familie's HOMES and protest, right? And I say that even if ALL funerals are protected, about, say, gay funerals.
but then... wait. I wanna see that happen. for we also have a law against something called "Disturbing the Peace." and if Phelps goes and crosses the property bounderies into the person's home. then that person can ask Phelps and Co. to leave. should they refuse, then the owner/renter can have Phelps and Co arrested for tresspassing and loitering. If proven he followed them from the Funeral, then Stalking can be added. and they can probably be sued for Emotinal distress...

hmmm. Phelps and co... broke, with a string of police records... I'm liking it more and more.:D

but then... wait. I wanna see that happen. for we also have a law against something called "Disturbing the Peace." and if Phelps goes and crosses the property bounderies into the person's home. then that person can ask Phelps and Co. to leave. should they refuse, then the owner/renter can have Phelps and Co arrested for tresspassing and loitering. If proven he followed them from the Funeral, then Stalking can be added. and they can probably be sued for Emotinal distress...

hmmm. Phelps and co... broke, with a string of police records... I'm liking it more and more.:D

I'm not so sure it'll happen that way. Phelps is lawful evilness incarnate. He bends the law to his purposes, and, as a lawyer, he's aware of HOW to bend them. That's the problem. Or else, emotional distress would have been brought up without the need of a law. And all Phelps has is not to step on the peoples' lawn...

Those Church Idiots abused the right to protest and so the results are now, another area where the right to protest is now illegal.

Well not just yet. And I doubt very much if it will pass both houses. You know the sad thing about the Phelpses is that it's usually one or two adults and a handful of children at these protests. The children are made to protest or face very dire consequences. The punishments in the Phelps family have historically been corporal. A third generation of Phelpses is being beaten and poisoned by this one very sick, very cruel patriarch. It is so horribley sad. And yet the citizens of Topeka are exhausted from fighting this man, and have apparently given up and turned a blind eye.

However, from a personal view, funerals are no place for political ideas to be expressed - they are personal events for people. If those who were closed to the deceased wish to use the funeral of their loved one as a soapbox, then that is their choice. The fact that a Republican has come out as backing this bill does not surprise me.

Its not the bereaved families that are protesting. Its a family of wackos from Topeka, Kansas. The Phelps.

You are aware that Phelps will simply wait for an hour and a minute to go to the familie's HOMES and protest, right? And I say that even if ALL funerals are protected, about, say, gay funerals.

This is true. The Phelpses have protested private homes on numerous occassions. The man is an attention junkie. Even if this law did pass, he would expend all of his vast wealth and force all of his lawyer kids to fight it. It will be a huge burden for the legal system and in the end, it doesn't matter one whit to Phelps whether he wins or loses because its all about the exposure anyway.

but then... wait. I wanna see that happen. for we also have a law against something called "Disturbing the Peace." and if Phelps goes and crosses the property bounderies into the person's home. then that person can ask Phelps and Co. to leave. should they refuse, then the owner/renter can have Phelps and Co arrested for tresspassing and loitering. If proven he followed them from the Funeral, then Stalking can be added. and they can probably be sued for Emotinal distress...

hmmm. Phelps and co... broke, with a string of police records... I'm liking it more and more.:D

They are too smart to break existing laws. They are all lawyers. The stand along the curb in front of these homes on public property and are careful not to obstruct traffic. Their protests are often silent. They use huge handmade signs with the most dispicable comments on them. You really need to log on to their website: www.http://godhatesfags.com to understand their methods.

www.http://godhatesfags.com

should be:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

I'm not so sure it'll happen that way. Phelps is lawful evilness incarnate. He bends the law to his purposes, and, as a lawyer, he's aware of HOW to bend them. That's the problem. Or else, emotional distress would have been brought up without the need of a law. And all Phelps has is not to step on the peoples' lawn...

Ahh, but that's still harrassment...

Ahh, but that's still harrassment...

If it (LEGALLY) was harassment (it IS, only not LEGALLY), he'd refrain from doing it. He and his group support themselves by getting beaten up after "not doing anything illegal" and getting money from court deals. That's the problem here. Phelps is as lawful evil as it comes.

what I find funny are the people that are clamoring here saying "but they have a right to be protected against emotional distress!"

The first amendment prohibits governmental action in limiting your free expression. If someone can make a legitimate and provable claim for intentional interferance with piece of mind, the let them have at em. 1st amendment is not a valid defense in civil action, and if those harmed by this behavior can legitimatly prove iit, then let them do it.

If they can't prove it, even in the lower standards of a civil suit, then should we really be passing laws to prevent the kind of behavior that nobody can prove is actually having any harmful effect?

what I find funny are the people that are clamoring here saying "but they have a right to be protected against emotional distress!"

The first amendment prohibits governmental action in limiting your free expression. If someone can make a legitimate and provable claim for intentional interferance with piece of mind, the let them have at em. 1st amendment is not a valid defense in civil action, and if those harmed by this behavior can legitimatly prove iit, then let them do it.

If they can't prove it, even in the lower standards of a civil suit, then should we really be passing laws to prevent the kind of behavior that nobody can prove is actually having any harmful effect?

No one's said anything about their 'right to be protected against emotional distress.' We're claiming right to peacefully assemble. With the protestors, the families are hardly able to peacefully assemble.

No one's said anything about their 'right to be protected against emotional distress.' We're claiming right to peacefully assemble. With the protestors, the families are hardly able to peacefully assemble.

The 1st amendment protects against Congress (and, through incorporation via the 14th, any level of government) from acting to abridge your ability to peacefully assemble.

It says nothing about your right against being prevented from peacefull assembly because one group is capable of making a bigger racket than you are.

As I said, if the actions of various parties cause legitimate, recognizable emotional distress then sue em. if it doesn't, then should we be regulating something that can't be proven to cause any measurable harm?

Again, what about the right of the family to peacefully assemble?

Quoting an old Chief Justice: "My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

The right of the protestors to protest is valid - until it begins interrupting the right of the families to peacefully assemble. And in this instance, it's quite a trampling of the family's rights.


This bill does not only apply to Vets. So using the argument that the Military hasnt protected our freedoms is a red herring used to throw people off from the fact that this bill protects all funerals at any National Cemetary and strongly encourages States to provide the same protection within their respective borders.

How many of you detractors have actually read the bill?

I have read the Bill on 'Thomas' and I have just spent the last year studying American Government and Politics for my A-levels, so my knowledge of the political system of the United States is none-too-shabby.

Actually, with the Supreme Court now probably weighted in favour of strict constructionists, this law may be struck down. The First Amendment right to freedom of assembly is a blanket right - it does not favour one group over another. A strict constructionist - assuming that they do not hold pro-military views *cough*Republicans*cough* - would argue the blanket right case, and that this law has prevented people peacefully assembling.

I just received a newsletter from Congressman John Sullivan (R. OK), which states that Congress has passed legislation criminalizing protests at military funerals. I am glad that Congress has acted and hope the Senate passes it also. Those who gave their life for our country deserve respect, especially at their funerals.

Below is the quote from the newsletter.


Paying Respect to America's Fallen Heroes in Uniform

"Across the country, there have been reports of groups actively protesting at military funerals and services. Our servicemen and women, who have already given the ultimate sacrifice, deserve to be honored with dignity and their families given the chance to pay their respects in peace. This week my colleagues in the House and I passed H.R. 5037, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act of 2006. This legislation establishes criminal penalties for those who choose to disrupt the burial of a fallen American service member and establishes time and space boundaries for those protesting funerals at national cemeteries. It is sad and frustrating that this legislation is even necessary, but these families and their soldiers deserve to have their respect and dignity protected during their time of loss."


Right on!

I know that this bill means that some people would have their freedom to a peaceable assembly quashed but who ever is protesting at ANY funeral deserves to be locked up for their complete disregard for other people. If they want to protest then they should do it out the front of government buildings and offices not funerals of ordinary soldiers who were ordered to go to Iraq. They did their duty and even though many people disagreed with it possibly even members of their own families. Leave people to grieve in peace.