Funeral Protests Ruled OK By Supreme Court

Sali said:
It's clear they are only protesting funerals to harass and cause grief and attention. They can do that elsewhere, they don't need to protest the funeral of someone who died for our country.
Click to expand...

I wouldn
 
Sali said:
I can not fathom how anyone can agree with the ruling, what the WBC does is a direct attack on a grieving emotional family, it's not the same kind of thing as protesting on the steps of congress, these are individuals we are talking about not institutions.
Click to expand...

True, but the law doesn
 
As much as I hate to say it, I agree with the ruling. I don't see how it's not legal. The KKK has rallies just miles away from where I am living at the state capitol every couple of years. The WBC came and protested gay students at the high school just down the road. They are protesting in hate, but it ensures the freedom of all to protest and publicly display their views. If the government could pick and chose what is hateful and thus illegal, it has the possibility to deny any group the right to protest and assemble. I doubt the law in the south and southwest liked the civil rights protests, and probably would have shut them down entirely had they the legal means to call it hateful. The WBC is a group of morons, but if they are in their designated area to protest America and its armed forces (out of sight and earshot of the family) I'm for protecting their asinine hate speech.

As for the allusion to burning crosses, this is much different. The KKK burned crosses in the yards of families as intimidation and to incite thoughts of imminent violence. Protesting at a funeral does not carry the same violent connotations burning a cross does. The WBC is a non-violent hate group whereas the KKK was actively lynching people the disagreed with. The difference between the two actions (cross burning and protesting) is terrorism. Cross burning is terrorism. Hateful words are legal.
 
Sali said:
Would you feel the same way if they where at your father, mother, brother, sister, etc's. funeral?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, because I make no distinction based on my family as it regards the law in general, and civil rights in particular.

My recent scores for moral parsimony in another thread speak to that! :smile:


cheers,
Ian
 
aeon said:
Absolutely, because I make no distinction based on my family as it regards the law in general, and civil rights in particular.

My recent scores for moral parsimony in another thread speak to that! :smile:


cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

I think my problem with it is if you're protesting a funeral you're essentially protesting a person and I really don't see how that can't be harassment.

It devalues a persons life.
 
Sali said:
I think my problem with it is if you're protesting a funeral you're essentially protesting a person and I really don't see how that can't be harassment.

It devalues a persons life.
Click to expand...

Well, their position is that they are not protesting a person, but the moral choices of a nation, and the law took their stated intent into question. This is key in understanding the case.

As to their protesting devaluing a person
 
bamf said:
As much as I hate to say it, I agree with the ruling. I don't see how it's not legal. The KKK has rallies just miles away from where I am living at the state capitol every couple of years. The WBC came and protested gay students at the high school just down the road. They are protesting in hate, but it ensures the freedom of all to protest and publicly display their views. If the government could pick and chose what is hateful and thus illegal, it has the possibility to deny any group the right to protest and assemble. I doubt the law in the south and southwest liked the civil rights protests, and probably would have shut them down entirely had they the legal means to call it hateful. The WBC is a group of morons, but if they are in their designated area to protest America and its armed forces (out of sight and earshot of the family) I'm for protecting their asinine hate speech.

As for the allusion to burning crosses, this is much different. The KKK burned crosses in the yards of families as intimidation and to incite thoughts of imminent violence. Protesting at a funeral does not carry the same violent connotations burning a cross does. The WBC is a non-violent hate group whereas the KKK was actively lynching people the disagreed with. The difference between the two actions (cross burning and protesting) is terrorism. Cross burning is terrorism. Hateful words are legal.
Click to expand...

I could go along with this but it's still pretty messed up though. Considering that many of these protesters are great "moral Christians" protesting funerals of abortion doctors and gay people.
 
I think everyone is missing the point, it doesn't matter what they are protesting, they are messing with peoples emotions and someone IS going to get hurt, and that is on the supreme courts hands.
 
Sali said:
I think everyone is missing the point, it doesn't matter what they are protesting, they are messing with peoples emotions and someone IS going to get hurt, and that is on the supreme courts hands.
Click to expand...

The point is that this is a legal matter. People
 
Sali said:
I think everyone is missing the point, it doesn't matter what they are protesting, they are messing with peoples emotions and someone IS going to get hurt, and that is on the supreme courts hands.
Click to expand...
Preemptively destroying someone's right to organize and protest because of the potential for someone to be hurt is kind of out there. I mean when they forced the desegregation of schools someone was bound to be hurt. People's actions are not the responsibility of the Supreme Court, nor can they allow irresponsible potential actions to take away one's right to nonviolent legal protest.
 
bamf said:
Preemptively destroying someone's right to organize and protest because of the potential for someone to be hurt is kind of out there. I mean when they forced the desegregation of schools someone was bound to be hurt. People's actions are not the responsibility of the Supreme Court, nor can they allow irresponsible potential actions to take away one's right to nonviolent legal protest.
Click to expand...

This isn't a protest, it's harassment. If it is a protest what is it that's being protested exactly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
Sali said:
This isn't a protest, it's harassment. If it is a protest what is it that's being protested exactly?
Click to expand...

I already told you that part. WBC protests America's tolerance of homosexuality.
 
Sali said:
This isn't a protest, it's harassment. If it is a protest what is it that's being protested exactly?
Click to expand...
Like I said before, their opinion on American military involvement and gays. They aren't at the funerals, they aren't yelling at the families. They are legally within their bounds on public land out of sight and earshot of the funerals. They aren't protesting the family or the deceased, they are protesting gays in America and the American military. Neo-nazis protest Black people. WBC protest gay people. They chose to coincide their protests around military funerals. They aren't calling the house of the dead, they aren't chasing the family around, they aren't screaming over the service. That'd be harassment. They're protesting.
 
I just don't see why they would use a funeral as an outlet to protest their views.
 
Ghostd said:
I just don't see why they would use a funeral as an outlet to protest their views.
Click to expand...
Because the outrage gathers media attention for them. When the stories are spun in a way that it sounds as if they are almost stomping on the grave it's even better for their publicity.
 
A funeral is a personal private event and is therefore an inappropriate thing to protest. If this is the kind of pain the constitution protects than the constitution needs to be altered.
 
Sali said:
A funeral is a personal private event and is therefore an inappropriate thing to protest. If this is the kind of pain the constitution protects than the constitution needs to be altered.
Click to expand...
They aren't at the funeral, nor are they protesting the funeral. They are on public land within their rights to assemble and are protesting the acceptance of gays in America claiming that it is what causes military deaths in general.
 
bamf said:
Because the outrage gathers media attention for them. When the stories are spun in a way that it sounds as if they are almost stomping on the grave it's even better for their publicity.
Click to expand...

They care so little about the effects of such protests, merely to gain publicity to their cause?. Sacrifice for the greater good..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top