High Court Struggles With Military Funeral Protest Case

**Imisnew2** · 10-18-10, 03:07 PM

The only part of your post I don't agree with, glitch, is the fact that they don't have anything vulgar on their signs. In my book, "fag" is just as vulgar as "bitch". It's a derogatory term used to profile a group of people.

**Glitch** · 10-18-10, 03:22 PM

I agree with you hence I was trying to say "vulgar under local laws". What you and I find Vulgar is irrelevant as long as local law doesn't say anything. Personally I don't find naked women dancing on my lap at a bar vulgar but there are those around who do and they had more gumption to get local laws changed to reflect what they wanted than I did.

There is an anti-abortion truck that drives around the hospital I work at with 10'x15' pictures of dismembered fetuses. It doesn't get more disgusting than that but apparently it doesn't violate any local laws so nothing can be done about it unless I can get the support to change the city ordinances

**digital** · 10-18-10, 03:32 PM

For example thats why very frequently says Skin Head Nazis are declined a permit to protest. Normally the cross the line from free speech to incendiary speech were essentially their inciting violence with their speech which then starts to break the law.

Like someone said earlier. A parent is grieving for their child , some jackass down or across the street starts to protesting similiar stuff and said parent gets a gun and resolves things themselves.

Who's at fault?

Because in all honestly it would be easy to say claim temporary mental disease or defect. I mean looking your kid, what else would not make you go crazy.

**deathgodusmc** · 10-18-10, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Glitch

I'm sure you notice that personally I agree these Westbourgh imbeciles don't deserve to breath the air of the families of the fallen and I think the world would be a better place if they ceased to be in it. I know noone is saying or probably even thinking that i just wanted to clarify I will not defend their actions... I am only defending their right to make those actions.

Death I am breaking your post down for clarity, not as an attack because a WHOLE lot of me agrees with you

Two parties are disagreeing over a topic.

Party A is a church that believes GLBT's are a abomination to God.
Party B is a Nationaly Government and Public that does not outlaw/kill on sight anyone who is GLBT

Granted only one party is showing up but no one ever said you can't hold a protest unless both parties showed up.

I assume they had a permit otherwise it would be handled under those laws. My understanding is they always adhere to the letter of the law so that there isn't a direct route to stop them that way. I wish they would screw up that way bt so far that isn't happening. This addresses your earlier question about At what point does that assemble constitute a breach of peace or misconduct on their part? As long as they don't litter, have signs considered vulgar or violate disturbing the peace ordinances by being too loud under local laws, then they are not in breach of peace or misconduct.

I agree 100% but it should be regulated at the local level via laws limiting when and where they can protest, not by trying to limit what they can say at all.

When that happens I pray I am on the jury so that I can argue my brains out that the accused get as light of a sentence allowed under the law. Hopefully a few weeks in a mental hospital for grief counseling.

I hate what they spew but it isn't up to the government to say they are not allowed to spew it. Next time it might be what you are saying that the government doesn't like, and while I don't agree with the things you say or believe politically I believe in your right to believe and say them and would fight for you if the government tried to censor what you had to say.

I understood your point on the matter. So it was never considered an attack but more of a discussion on the topic at hand.

I agree that one can make a statement without a counter part being there. However what they are doing in my opinion is not what you are reffering to. This to me is a direct attack on those families and not a peacefull protest. Their stance is god hates fags and i dont think anyone here would argue that their signs are meant to be pleasant. So what is the point of protesting a funeral? Are they trying to say every soldier that dies and they show up was gay? Even if they were not an appropriate place and time for the debate about it.

We cant go around trying to act like freedoms haven't been taken away from us in the past. We cant even begin to act like free speach hasn't been ammended since the constitution was made. FCC ring a bell? In this very forum 100% freedom of speach does not exsist. Dont get me wrong im trying to say its a bad thing. Some people go over the top on shit with no regard to anyone around them. You already have laws dictating when where and how protests can be done. So why try to pretend that banning this atrocite would start the ball rolling to free speach or freedom of assembly being abolished? I have no issue with who makes the call wether it be local or federal governments but this type of shit should not be permited to happen.

**Glitch** · 10-18-10, 04:12 PM

These boards don't count because Free Speech applies to public not private property.

You already have laws dictating when where and how protests can be done.

My point is exactly this... There are already laws dictating when and where. Those laws should be what is used to keep these people from infringing on the rights of the families mourning for lost loved ones. I don't think there needs to be new laws enacted to do the same thing, which is what you are asking for when you go to the Supreme Court. They are essentially asking that separate laws should apply in newer broader terms. (not brand new ones made) To me this is the same as trying to get congress to pass new gun control laws when the current existing laws are fine if they were enforced properly.

**Glitch** · 10-18-10, 04:18 PM

I guess honestly I am surprised that more people here don't speak up. This is one of those areas I would think the "States rights vs Federal Rights" folks would have an opinion because that exactly how I look at it. It is an issue to be dealt with using state and local laws about where and when protests can be held which already exist and have not been found to be a violation of the 1st Amendment... not addressed by making WHAT they say illegal.

Hmmm BTW Digital I didn't realize the Neo-Nazis were denied protest permits based on those reasons. Quite often I have seen KKK protests and marches allowed. Even where they have police lines in place to separate them from counter protests. Either way I would think the same laws should apply here

**deathgodusmc** · 10-18-10, 06:43 PM

I dont disagree with you Glitch. I dont believe there are currently laws stating what is nessesary to block this type of behavior. I would settle for something as mild as no protests of this nature within say 500 ft of a funeral. Enough for basically to be out of ear shot of those involved or something to the effect of each city actually looking at the permit and making a sound judgement before signing off on it. My personal beliefs is that those in morning should not have to deal with this type of nonsense but i also feel people should have the right to protest. So it becomes a tough call and like i said earlier in the thread i do not envy the ones that have to make the call on this one. No matter which way it goes people are going to be upset.

**Glitch** · 10-19-10, 08:55 AM

Im sorry... my brain cant comprehend

Did a discussion just peter out without someone exploding and with no childish insults?

Ahh crap am I on the wrong forums again?