2nd Amendment Remedies

[Davin]

I don't like that they DO IT, but they have the right.

They don't have that right in Indiana, Michigan, South Dakota, Illinois, at any National Cemetery, and now they don't have it at Arizona. Freedom of speech has always had limits, and there is, as Davin said, an enormous difference between protests versus harassment and hate speech. As a nation there are penalties for similar behavior in the workplace or for kids at school. Why would a mother just trying to bury her 9 year-old not have at least the same right to a peaceful environment? Westboro is provoking people, plain and simple.

Sophus, I hear you. Don't mistake what I said as support for WBC. I was careful to make it clear that I am against what they do. I never addressed a State's right to enact legislation. I also already acknowledged that there are limits to free speech and that I hope they continue to be refined (a la Arizona). Of course I don't want these clowns anywhere near a funeral. But they were allowed to be, and will be allowed to (elsewhere) until the government gets a handle on what "hate speech" is. And that is a slippery slope, by the way. Who gets to define it? What will the social norms today allow vs. ten years or fifty years from now? Limiting speech is limiting speech. Ask anyone in living in a theocracy. It ain't cut and dry.

I don't have a problem with hate speech. I think the issue is harassment. I don't think that protests held at a funeral is a freedom worth protecting. Protect their and our rights to say what we want by not allowing hate speech to be legally defined and discriminated against.

I also don't think that the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room when there is no fire, should be protected. I also don't think that the right to incite violence should be protected. I think preventing protests at funerals falls right in line with those. Not because of the "hate speech", but because it's harassment. I'm more willing to delve into the argument of what harassment is why it should not be allowed in some instances than to try to come up with even a rough definition of "hate speech".

There will always be "rights" that will be sacrificed for the sake of living in a society (what about my right to kill people?), I think the consideration is what freedoms and who do we protect? Is the right to free speech really trampled on by not allowing a protest at a funeral? Is that a right that needs to be protected for the sake of not causing undue emotional stress on people that are probably in a very extreme emotional state already? I don't think it is. Keep in mind that they can still protest at the cemetery, just not during a funeral.

I don't feel like even addressing the other issue you brought up.

[LegendarySandwich]

I don't like that they DO IT, but they have the right.

They don't have that right in Indiana, Michigan, South Dakota, Illinois, at any National Cemetery, and now they don't have it at Arizona. Freedom of speech has always had limits, and there is, as Davin said, an enormous difference between protests versus harassment and hate speech. As a nation there are penalties for similar behavior in the workplace or for kids at school. Why would a mother just trying to bury her 9 year-old not have at least the same right to a peaceful environment? Westboro is provoking people, plain and simple.

The only limitations I feel we should have on free speech and expression are those that prevent material harm to people.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If the protesters are standing on public property, legislating their ability to speak based on the content of their speech is prima facie unConstitutional. To argue that "it's not what they're saying, it's that it's harassment" is disingenuous, because this demonstration is a one-time affair, whereas a major component of "harassment", legally, is that it be ongoing and chronic.  This obviously doesn't meet that criterion; a funeral is a one-time thing.

I also don't think that the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room when there is no fire, should be protected. I also don't think that the right to incite violence should be protected. I think preventing protests at funerals falls right in line with those.

This is a false equivocation.  The demonstrations are not in and of themselves a hazard to life or property, nor an incitement to violence.  They are not urging anyone to take up arms against the military, the mourners, the city officials, or anyone else at all.  If you are arguing that they should not be permitted to demonstrate within legal limits because those viewing the demonstration may be incited to violence, there are laws already in place that ban assault and battery, or worse.  Arguing that WBC should be stripped of their right to demonstrate freely on public property because they might get attacked strikes me much like telling someone to shut up before they get hit.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree.  The First Amendment was crafted most of all to protect speech that the majority find repugnant.

Denial of free speech or expression is when one is never allowed to say or show what one feels.

This is not so.  The much criticized "free-speech" zones of Bush are a perfect example of how a political opposition is silenced by the manipulation of circumstances.  From the Wiki:

The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[1][2] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries.

Constitutional?  The Supreme Court says so.  Free speech?  Only as free as "shout into your pillow so no one can hear you -- or else" is free.

[Sophus]

If the protesters are standing on public property, legislating their ability to speak based on the content of their speech is prima facie unConstitutional. To argue that "it's not what they're saying, it's that it's harassment" is disingenuous, because this demonstration is a one-time affair, whereas a major component of "harassment", legally, is that it be ongoing and chronic.  This obviously doesn't meet that criterion; a funeral is a one-time thing.

However they stalk funerals. But, what if we look at it this way: funerals are expensive one time events. What right do they have to crash an event for the grieving of a death and celebration of a life that is being paid for by a party other than themselves?

[LegendarySandwich]

If the protesters are standing on public property, legislating their ability to speak based on the content of their speech is prima facie unConstitutional. To argue that "it's not what they're saying, it's that it's harassment" is disingenuous, because this demonstration is a one-time affair, whereas a major component of "harassment", legally, is that it be ongoing and chronic.  This obviously doesn't meet that criterion; a funeral is a one-time thing.

However they stalk funerals. But, what if we look at it this way: funerals are expensive one time events. What right do they have to crash an event for the grieving of a death and celebration of a life that is being paid for by a party other than themselves?

I didn't realize that the amount of money that goes into an event is relevant to the limits on peoples' rights.

[Sophus]

I didn't realize that the amount of money that goes into an event is relevant to the limits on peoples' rights.

If it is a private funeral you have no right to even be there if not invited.

[LegendarySandwich]

I didn't realize that the amount of money that goes into an event is relevant to the limits on peoples' rights.

If it is a private funeral you have no right to even be there if not invited.

I agree.  I don't think a law saying they can't be there should be made, though.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't realize that the amount of money that goes into an event is relevant to the limits on peoples' rights.

If it is a private funeral you have no right to even be there if not invited.

You're ignoring the fact that they aren't at the funeral, but several hundred feet away, and on public property, not private.  

I'm disappointed at the number of freethinkers who would limit the free expression of admittedly odious thoughts.  the old saw about "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" comes to mind.  These laws that protect these idiots protect us, another despised minority.  You would throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

[Sophus]

You're ignoring the fact that they aren't at the funeral, but several hundred feet away, and on public property, not private.  

I'm disappointed at the number of freethinkers who would limit the free expression of admittedly odious thoughts.  the old saw about "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" comes to mind.  These laws that protect these idiots protect us, another despised minority.  You would throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

The cemetery is public, but funeral service can very well be private. Either way I don't think that's really what's at the heart of the issue but it is approaching it all from a different perspective. There is no way I can convince myself these people have the right to yell and protest at anyone's funeral regardless of their message. The message, you'll notice, is stupid but it's not what troubles most of those who are opposed to Westboro's "rights" (which, as pointed out, in many cases they don't have). What is uncalled for is doing what they're doing in the context they are doing it in. If we can't guarantee a mother the right to bury her 9 year-old daughter without these assholes making the worse time of her life that much worse what kind of a country are we? The intentional infliction of emotional distress is illegal, it is not protected by the First Amendment, and it is their only aim.

[Sophus]

Hmm. A man has been arrested for threatening a Congressman from Seattle. I wonder if these sorts of threats are really anything new or if Tucson is causing law enforcement to take this stuff more seriously.

I'm rather worried for Rep. Bob Filner after one of the Tea Party members he faced in this aggressive crowd has posted this odious comment online in reaction to Loughner:

“Who knows maybe this guy was just fed up too, whatever his motive I’m sure he was justified and I am enjoying this moment because this is how a revolution begins people, and it’s funny. I’m going to celebrate!”

I mean, Jesus Christ, that's not a direct threat but they shouldn't let this guy anywhere near Filner if he feels assassinations of Democrats in Congress is justified.

[Tank]

Separate issue: Where were all the lawmakers before now?  Shame on anyone who was silent on this while members of the armed services have been vilified by WBC all these years. It took a Democratic Congresswoman to be shot, a Federal Judge to be murdered, and some civilians to be murdered for so many people to speak up and act.

It's often 'the last straw' syndrome. People can bury their heads in the sand about things for a long time until one thing pushes them over the edge. When one looks back one can see the pressure building but it's not until a tipping point is reached that acting appears to be better than remaining quiescent. Society has hysteresis just as many systems do. The reverse situation would be knee jerk reaction to everything and that's possibly worse as laws made in haste are often bad laws. One has to hope that now laws are being made to acknowledge the rights of grieving people not to be used as a publicity stunt that the laws created just deal with that issue. And I agree with the slippery slope issue it could be a problem but the history of the USA, it's creation and development, place so much emphasis on the rights of the individual to express themselves that I slope will be very shallow and the people pushing back many and vigilant.

[Sophus]

Separate issue: Where were all the lawmakers before now?  Shame on anyone who was silent on this while members of the armed services have been vilified by WBC all these years. It took a Democratic Congresswoman to be shot, a Federal Judge to be murdered, and some civilians to be murdered for so many people to speak up and act.

Each state has had to act on its own. I don't know if Westboro had been to Arizona to picket funerals before.

[Davin]

If the protesters are standing on public property, legislating their ability to speak based on the content of their speech is prima facie unConstitutional. To argue that "it's not what they're saying, it's that it's harassment" is disingenuous, because this demonstration is a one-time affair, whereas a major component of "harassment", legally, is that it be ongoing and chronic.  This obviously doesn't meet that criterion; a funeral is a one-time thing.

I think the several hours they do this for is "ongoing" enough. For legal definitions it depends on the state, for AZ this is the legal definition. I think this kind of thing falls under "1. Anonymously or otherwise contacts, communicates or causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that harasses." and "3. Repeatedly commits an act or acts that harass another person." However until this new restriction, it would have been allowed under "D. This section does not apply to an otherwise lawful demonstration, assembly or picketing."

I also don't think that the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room when there is no fire, should be protected. I also don't think that the right to incite violence should be protected. I think preventing protests at funerals falls right in line with those.

This is a false equivocation.  The demonstrations are not in and of themselves a hazard to life or property, nor an incitement to violence.  They are not urging anyone to take up arms against the military, the mourners, the city officials, or anyone else at all.

The reason I chose two examples that are so varied is to show that it wasn't false equivocation, I had failed. I did not mean that it was similar in protecting the safety of others, but that it is similar that it can be clearly defined. Which means that it can't be used to stop people from demonstrating anywhere else or even at a cemetery.

If you are arguing that they should not be permitted to demonstrate within legal limits because those viewing the demonstration may be incited to violence, there are laws already in place that ban assault and battery, or worse.

Nope, not arguing that.

Arguing that WBC should be stripped of their right to demonstrate freely on public property because they might get attacked strikes me much like telling someone to shut up before they get hit.[/quote[Not arguing that either.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree.  The First Amendment was crafted most of all to protect speech that the majority find repugnant.

I have no problem with what anyone says, nor am I trying to take away their right to say it. I'm saying that the right to protest at a funeral does not need to be protected.

[Sophus]

Another Democrat had a gun pointed at them. Doesn't sound political this time.

Illinois State Representative Edward Acevedo had a gun pointed at him Friday night on Chicago's Lower West Side, but the gunman took off when he realized who Acevedo was.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the representative was standing on the sidewalk in the 2500 block of South Oakley Avenue when a van pulled up alongside him and an occupant pointed a gun in his direction.

Acevedo then "announced his office" to the gunman and the van sped off.

Aside from being the Illinois House's assistant majority leader and a representative since 1997, Acevedo has been a Chicago police officer since 1995, the Chicago Tribune reports. It is unclear which office Acevedo announced.

Police have released few details on the incident, and no arrests have been made.

[Sophus]

This can probably be moved to Politics as it's no longer current. But there is new information surfacing....

url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110218/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_firefighter_call]Yahoo News[/url]"]A veteran firefighter refused to respond to last month's deadly shooting spree that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wounded because he had different political views than his colleagues and "did not want to be part of it," according to internal city memos.
Mark Ekstrum's insubordination may have delayed his unit's response because firefighters had to stop at another station to pick up a replacement for him, the Arizona Daily Star reported.

The 28-year veteran of the Tucson Fire Department retired two days later while his supervisors were still considering how to discipline him, according to the Star, which obtained the memos about the incident through a public records request.
Capt. Ben Williams wrote in a report that when Ekstrum first said he would not go on the call, "he mentioned something about `political bantering' and he did not want to be part of it."

Williams said in the report that he told the 56-year-old firefighter that he could not refuse a call for that reason and then talked to the firefighter privately in his office. He said Ekstrum "started to say something about how he had a much different political viewpoint than the rest of the crew and he was concerned."