Uh oh, South Dakota is banning more "civil liberties"

Tempting as it might be, you cannot use violence against peaceful demonstrators. We are a democracy after all...

I view this issue like a view the flag burning one. I believe in a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment, that includes Offensive free speech. The constitution was written to protect the rights of self-centered whackjobs regardless of their cause from radical Maxists on the left to Neo-Nazis on the right.

While I oppose an outright ban, I DO think their should be certain restrictions so that these nutcases cannot actually interfere or disrupt the service, keeping them at a certain distance for example...

Also I think ALL funerals (not just military) should be protected, so for example people attending the service of someone who died from AIDS doesnt get the Christian Fundimentalists chanting "F*** Burn in hell!' during the wake.

Oh, and to anyone who is about to paint me with the American unpatriotic brush, my objection is strictly constitutional you'd never see me protesting a funeral, not even at a Neocons...
 
Missileer said:
I've never seen an attitude that a butt stroke to the jaw couldn't adjust.
Click to expand...

You know Missiler, not too long ago you accused me of whitewashing the Saddam Hussein Regime, but that is EXACTLY the type of tactic Saddam would have used to silence any protester. Doesn't that seem just slightly hypocritical to you?
 
mmarsh said:
Tempting as it might be, you cannot use violence against peaceful demonstrators. We are a democracy after all...

I view this issue like a view the flag burning one. I believe in a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment, that includes Offensive free speech. The constitution was written to protect the rights of self-centered whackjobs regardless of their cause from radical Maxists on the left to Neo-Nazis on the right.

While I oppose an outright ban, I DO think their should be certain restrictions so that these nutcases cannot actually interfere or disrupt the service, keeping them at a certain distance for example...

Also I think ALL funerals (not just military) should be protected, so for example people attending the service of someone who died from AIDS doesnt get the Christian Fundimentalists chanting "F*** Burn in hell!' during the wake.

Oh, and to anyone who is about to paint me with the American unpatriotic brush, my objection is strictly constitutional you'd never see me protesting a funeral, not even at a Neocons...
Click to expand...

well said. It's good to see a fellow Constitutionalist :stupid:
 
While I think banning protest at funerals would be a violation of the first amendment, I wouldnt mind seeing some kind of law banning protest on burial grounds all together. So that encompeses it all without saying you cant protest a funeral, you just cant protest a funeral in a grave yard(or other burial ground).
 
Does anyone have a link to the actual laws that are or will be enacted? I will research further when I get to work.
 
See, I believe that physical abuse and mental/verbal abuse should have the same punishments and therefore if someone wants to express their discontent verbally than another person should be able to counter protest their discontent physically. Person A (5'2" 120 lbs) uses his advantage of having wasted X numbers of years going to college which ultimately proves that he can sit still for 50 minutes at a time and little else, to heckle Person B. Person B (6'4" 240 lbs.) uses his advantage of 1'2" and 120 lbs. to remind Person A that he needs to shut his mouth every now and then.

And this is why I feel this way.

Husband and wife, not so happily married for 13 years, the wife spends the last five years of their marriage yelling at her husband, husband hits her once because after so many years he is sick of her shit. Husband is sent to jail fro domestic assault, couple gets divorced, wife gets everything, the house, the dog, you name it.

Sorry, but in a situation like that I feel that the husband had every right to do what he did and if a protestor or some idiot is yelling at someone twice their size and calling them an idiot for their beliefs they should know that yes, there is a good chance they will get knocked out. But hey, that's just how I feel, when I become President I will see to it that those things are fixed, someday....
 
mmarsh said:
Tempting as it might be, you cannot use violence against peaceful demonstrators. We are a democracy after all...

I view this issue like a view the flag burning one. I believe in a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment, that includes Offensive free speech. The constitution was written to protect the rights of self-centered whackjobs regardless of their cause from radical Maxists on the left to Neo-Nazis on the right.

While I oppose an outright ban, I DO think their should be certain restrictions so that these nutcases cannot actually interfere or disrupt the service, keeping them at a certain distance for example...

Also I think ALL funerals (not just military) should be protected, so for example people attending the service of someone who died from AIDS doesnt get the Christian Fundimentalists chanting "F*** Burn in hell!' during the wake.

Oh, and to anyone who is about to paint me with the American unpatriotic brush, my objection is strictly constitutional you'd never see me protesting a funeral, not even at a Neocons...
Click to expand...

..The new law bans protests within 1,000 feet of a funeral, memorial service, burial, or other ceremony from one hour before the service until one hour after the service...
Click to expand...


It doesn't restrict it to just military services. It is not telling them they can not picket or gather or otherwise cause a nuisance of themselves. It just says they can not do it for a certain amount of time in a certain place. Much like city ordnaces involving curfews for minors and noise etc.
 
Marinerhodes said:
Does anyone have a link to the actual laws that are or will be enacted? I will research further when I get to work.
Click to expand...

An update on the funeral protest bans.

Kan. House Passes Funeral Picketing Bill

On Wednesday, Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps' daughter, promised a lawsuit over the 300-yard restriction.


"The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on this issue, and they can't put us out of sight and sound of our targeted audience," she said. "If they don't like what they see, they need to drink a frosty mug of shut-the-hell-up and avert their eyes."
Click to expand...

Ain't she sweet? A real paragon of love and kindness. :roll:
 
Phelps and his followers contend the deaths are God's vengeance for the U.S. harboring homosexuals and their protests are a form of religious expression. For years, Phelps and his followers protested funerals of AIDS victims but have shifted to soldiers.
Click to expand...

Wow, they aren't protesting the war? Just the fact that the US "harbors" homosexuals. Are they implying that the military is full of homosexuals? Or are they just wanting to get attention? Seems to me it is the latter rather than any of the former.

As for infringing the rights of people and the constitution:

It is restricting them to a distance and a time frame. No one says they can not demonstrate. No one says they can not picket. No one says they can not use a bullhorn (although I hope noise ordinance laws would help with that), no one says they can not take out ads, no one says they can not speak their mind(s). No one says anything about that at all. Of course this is a biased opinion, if you compare it to my replies on the 2nd amendment thread, one could even say it was hypocritical. So call me a hypocrite.

I feel this is a needed amendment or bill or whatever they decide to call it. Put yourself in the shoes of the grievers. If you were at your (insert relation here) funeral and you saw a bunch of people picketing the funeral, shouting and making obscene gestures and whatever else they happen to do, what would YOUR reaction be? In all seriousness, think about it before giving a response.

These people are targeting families that have lost loved ones. They don't need any more harassment or aggravation than they already have. This is a firm and fair law and I would support it 110% whether it infringes the absolute interpretation of the 1st amendment or not.

The people in the funeral are having some of their basic "human rights" violated. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Art 19 applies to the demonstrators but Article 30 takes that right back away from them. Read the various articles and tell me where the people at the funeral have to tolerate this kind of affront.

Granted I do not know what (if any) of these are legal or otherwise enforceable by law. But doesn't it make a sort of sense?

By the way, take a good look at the pictures of the signs they are holding. Read what it says. These are the types of people this bill is aimed at, these are the types of people that make life a pain in the butt for the average American.
 
Last edited:
Marinerhodes said:
So call me a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Okay. Hypocrite. Now what?

Good post, I agree 110%! These people, to me, are no better than groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Nation of Islam, etc that we have in this country. They have no point, and their agenda is 'hate.'

Since when is harassment a right, anyway? These "protests" seem more like harassment than anything else.

I would be fine if they banned them from doing it altogether.
 
PJ24 said:
Okay. Hypocrite. Now what?

Good post, I agree 110%! These people, to me, are no better than groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Nation of Islam, etc that we have in this country. They have no point, and their agenda is 'hate.'

Since when is harassment a right, anyway? These "protests" seem more like harassment than anything else.

I would be fine if they banned them from doing it altogether.
Click to expand...

Sorry I edited some right after you posted. Reread and see if you still agree or have anything to add.
 
Missileer said:
Most cemetatries in big cities are privately owned and they can remove anyone that's a trespasser.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately these people are not on the property. They are on the sidewalks or streets just outside the cemetaries.
 
Marinerhodes said:
The people in the funeral are having some of their basic "human rights" violated. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Art 19 applies to the demonstrators but Article 30 takes that right back away from them. Read the various articles and tell me where the people at the funeral have to tolerate this kind of affront.

Granted I do not know what (if any) of these are legal or otherwise enforceable by law. But doesn't it make a sort of sense?
Click to expand...

The only problem I have with that is that it's a UN mandate and I am very anti-outside governance and influence when it pertains to the Constitution.

If we were going with this, though. I would that that the below article would pretty much limit the protesters.

Art. 29 (2)
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Click to expand...

I think these people just want attention, and negative attention is better than none. It is too bad they're making these families suffer for their idiocy.
 
I can see your point about outside governance but look at the ACLU and the impact they have on American society as a whole. The ACLU is not an official part of the US government as far as I know but they do have a huge impact on federal and state policies. They can pretty much dictate what is and is not considered an innate "human right". I wonder where they get their ideals from? If there is a document or charter that they live/act by.
 
Marinerhodes said:
I can see your point about outside governance but look at the ACLU and the impact they have on American society as a whole. The ACLU is not an official part of the US government as far as I know but they do have a huge impact on federal and state policies. They can pretty much dictate what is and is not considered an innate "human right". I wonder where they get their ideals from? If there is a document or charter that they live/act by.
Click to expand...

They don't make the laws though. They take what laws we have, and twist them to suit their agenda. They can't govern, all they can do is throw a fit when some criminal gets his just desserts and try to punish law abiding citizens. The Courts are just as much to blame for some of the ACLUs "wins" as they are.
 
PJ24 said:
They don't make the laws though. They take what laws we have, and twist them to suit their agenda. They can't govern, all they can do is throw a fit when some criminal gets his just desserts and try to punish law abiding citizens. The Courts are just as much to blame for some of the ACLUs "wins" as they are.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Without the pressure of the ACLU and other agencies of their ilk I doubt the laws and judgements would be so generous towards criminals as they are and have been. Take criminal A for example. He makes on average 30k a year. How can he afford a $1000 an hr lawyer? He gets supported by the ACLU for some perceived transgression against his human rights. He gets off or gets a lesser sentence when the ACLU comes into play. Take it to the extreme and take it to the best case. Political pressure and peer pressure is a bit*h.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top