Westboro to protest 9-year-old's funeral

[Gunslinger]

i cant agree!!!
the new law is a knee jerk, bird brained, feel good reaction.
it is an unconstitutional violation of THEIR 1st amendment rights!
it makes as little or less sense as the
proposed new law to restrict OUR 2nd amendment rights as
lawfully armed citizens within 1000 feet of a congressman or a judge!

i sure dont agree with the speech of the protesters, but i will defend their right to say it.
if they try to protest, there will be 100s of freedom rider bikers and 10000 Tucsons between them and the funeral!
if i was closer i would show up on my Motto Guzzi and help drown those religious wackos out!!

There is no constitutional protection against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. As I posted, these would be fighting words on their part and actionable.

 

[NRAMARINE]

Anyone who would protest the funeral of a child, is no true christian. They are evil down to their core.

 

[NRAMARINE]

There is no constitutional protection against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. As I posted, these would be fighting words on their part and actionable.

Yes and no. Free speech must be protected, however there is a time and place for everything. If you stand in the middle of the street at 2am reading your sister's diary aloud, that's called disturbing the peace.

 

[nonameisgood]

And for the 2nd, is there an inappropriate time and place, as determined by those who are made unhappy or fearful by your gun's presence? What say you all if the law was instead a 300 foot "gun free zone" around the funeral of a gunshot victim? I'm just sayin'

 

[NRAMARINE]

And for the 2nd, is there an inappropriate time and place, as determined by those who are made unhappy or fearful by your gun's presence? What say you all if the law was instead a 300 foot "gun free zone" around the funeral of a gunshot victim? I'm just sayin'

Valid point also. This is why we as a society must rely on adults to behave as adults and exercise a little discretion when dealing with delicate situations. For example, would it be more appropriate (all things being equal) to CC at a funeral, or OC? I would say CC, that's not to say I would try to stop someone from OC'ing. Not at all. The bottom line is that these "people" (sarcasm) who would protest the funeral of a child are dip$#!ts at best, and should be dealt with appropriately. Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right. BTW, I wonder if these @$$clowns would have the testicular fortitude to protest a funeral for say.....................a member of the Hell's Angels perhaps?

 

[Beau]

Satan is really using this guy.

Not only does this guy lead people away from God, he gives non christians reason to keep their distance from God.

Has anyone noticed that they don't plan protests at gangbangers' funerals? I guess in their opinion God doesn't hate people who kill each other for the purpose of controlling an area in order to sell substances to people.

 

[Grapeshot]

Valid point also. This is why we as a society must rely on adults to behave as adults and exercise a little discretion when dealing with delicate situations. For example, would it be more appropriate (all things being equal) to CC at a funeral, or OC? I would say CC, that's not to say I would try to stop someone from OC'ing. Not at all. The bottom line is that these "people" (sarcasm) who would protest the funeral of a child are dip$#!ts at best, and should be dealt with appropriately. Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right. BTW, I wonder if these @$$clowns would have the testicular fortitude to protest a funeral for say.....................a member of the Hell's Angels perhaps?

If memory serves me correctly, in NC you may not carry at all in a funeral procession.
Can anybody confirm that?

 

[wrightme]

And for the 2nd, is there an inappropriate time and place, as determined by those who are made unhappy or fearful by your gun's presence? What say you all if the law was instead a 300 foot "gun free zone" around the funeral of a gunshot victim? I'm just sayin'

Valid point also. This is why we as a society must rely on adults to behave as adults and exercise a little discretion when dealing with delicate situations. For example, would it be more appropriate (all things being equal) to CC at a funeral, or OC? I would say CC, that's not to say I would try to stop someone from OC'ing. Not at all. The bottom line is that these "people" (sarcasm) who would protest the funeral of a child are dip$#!ts at best, and should be dealt with appropriately. Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right. BTW, I wonder if these @$$clowns would have the testicular fortitude to protest a funeral for say.....................a member of the Hell's Angels perhaps?

Bearing arms is not a disruptive endeavor.
Protesting at a funeral is a disruptive endeavor.

There should be NO one who can validate banning firearms in an area simply because there happens to be a funeral there, but the same cannot be said for an active protest group being at a funeral.

 

[NRAMARINE]

Bearing arms is not a disruptive endeavor.
Protesting at a funeral is a disruptive endeavor.

There should be NO one who can validate banning firearms in an area simply because there happens to be a funeral there, but the same cannot be said for an active protest group being at a funeral.

Absolutely correct. However I was simply trying to make the point about personal discression. Re read my post and you will see that I specifically defended the right to oc at a funeral.I simply meant that my personal sense of discretion would encourage me to cc, as to avoid the possibility of adding more stress( however unfounded ) to an already tense situation. No parent should ever bury their child, and the mental state of her parents is beyond my imagining, therefore I personally would err on the side of discretion.

 

[nonameisgood]

You say that OC'ing a Glock at a funeral for a person killed with a similar weapon isn't disruptive? Maybe it _shouldn't_ be disruptive in your thinking, but I bet opinions vary. You want to normalize guns so they aren't a distraction, but in many contexts, they do make people fearful.

Many in the OC community would reply that it's a matter of rights. to which I reply "I hate Westboro's speech, but it's a matter of rights."
It just seems hypocritical to ask for freedom to exercise one right while applauding restriction of another - a restriction based solely on how it makes some people feel, rather than bases on some public safety concern.

Many places in Europe restrict speech such that you can't say things intended to cause mental anguish. Is that where we are headed? Westboro's issue: they cause mental anguish in a small group of people at each funeral (and outrage among people who are truly unaffected by their actions. ) Unpopular speech is always the first to be silenced.

 

[marshaul]

I do disagree with this. In this specific case, the right to privacy of those mourning a loss should allow for this temporary delay of another groups right to free speech. This is not much different than the "free speech zone" regulations in place for some gatherings.

You cannot "delay", even temporary, an immutable right. What must be found is the area where there is no apparent conflict of right -- since rights do not overlap.

It seems to me that a distance does not achieve this goal. It is quite arbitrary. However, one side has the right to protest, and the other to have their funeral unmolested and, when on property not open to the public, in privacy. I would suggest that a law prohibiting acts which interfere with a funeral or its procession might be better placed at the divide of the distinct, non-overlapping rights. Protesting would certainly qualify unless they were in no way preventing the normal conduction of the funeral (for example, no loudspeakers just outside 300'. Free speech would have to be accomplished at volumes levels such that are not disruptive to the funeral proceedings.)

 

[marshaul]

There is no constitutional protection against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. As I posted, these would be fighting words on their part and actionable.

The potential illegality of such a verbal ejaculation doesn't indicate any mitigation of the right to free speech. Indeed, the right to free speech never overlaps with the right of theater owners and their patrons to fulfill the contract of putting on, or viewing, the show, on private property, not to mention the right not to be trampled of everyone present! Such an exclamation infringes upon each of these rights, and thus cannot be an aspect of any right of its own. On the other hand, free speech still exists in a movie theater. I'll leave it to your imagination how one might engage in "free speech" in a theater without violating anybody's rights, and thus be acting within your own right. Perhaps posting on OCDO using ocular implants might cut the mustard?

The fact that I may carry a firearm, but I may not shoot someone with it, does not suggest any mitigation of my right to bear arms, does it? No, because that right could never conceivably overlap with the right of another person not to be murdered.

I have noticed that many people use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument out of the context in which it is valid. For example, in suggesting that some or other right is "not absolute". Invariably, the right is quite absolute, but it never may be expected to extend into an area where others' rights are infringed.

 

[*1911_man*]

Personally i think carrying a gun openly at a gunshot victims funereal is a very bad idea. The parents and family of that little girl just want there to be closure, and peace. Having firearms there (or at least visible) seems a bit inappropriate. No sense in scaring the attendees at the funereal. As for the sorry excuse of a church that those "people" claim to be a part of, they shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of ANYONE, much less a 9 year old girls funereal, that they wish to protest. Just my .02 worth. I would LOVE to go and be part of the barrier, but i think if i saw those "things" (protesters) i would probably have to kick at least a few of them right in their satanist faces.

 

[mahkagari]

I am torn about the 300' legislation. I have a problem restricting unpopular speech in a public area. But given the target of the legislation, I can't bring myself to complain too loudly.

The family of the young girl has gone on record as not being skittish about guns.

 

[wrightme]

Absolutely correct. However I was simply trying to make the point about personal discression. Re read my post and you will see that I specifically defended the right to oc at a funeral.I simply meant that my personal sense of discretion would encourage me to cc, as to avoid the possibility of adding more stress( however unfounded ) to an already tense situation. No parent should ever bury their child, and the mental state of her parents is beyond my imagining, therefore I personally would err on the side of discretion.

Go check which portion of which post I bolded, and see if you really believe that I took issue with ANYTHING you had posted.

 

[wrightme]

You say that OC'ing a Glock at a funeral for a person killed with a similar weapon isn't disruptive?

No, I did not say any such thing. You are arguing a strawman.

Maybe it _shouldn't_ be disruptive in your thinking, but I bet opinions vary. You want to normalize guns so they aren't a distraction, but in many contexts, they do make people fearful.

So? That is not a disruptive behavior such as a protest as Westboro intended, and which type of action was banned near funerals.

Many in the OC community would reply that it's a matter of rights. to which I reply "I hate Westboro's speech, but it's a matter of rights."
It just seems hypocritical to ask for freedom to exercise one right while applauding restriction of another - a restriction based solely on how it makes some people feel, rather than bases on some public safety concern.

It isn't about restricting a Right, it is about placing that Right of Privacy of the funeral procession above the Freedom of Speech of those who intended to disrupt that funeral.

Many places in Europe restrict speech such that you can't say things intended to cause mental anguish. Is that where we are headed? Westboro's issue: they cause mental anguish in a small group of people at each funeral (and outrage among people who are truly unaffected by their actions. ) Unpopular speech is always the first to be silenced.

No, that is not where we are headed. As I have already mentioned in this very thread, there is precedence in "free speech zones" near other types of gatherings, to allow free speech and also minimize distraction to the gathering.

In this specific, you clearly claimed that banning this protest was the same as banning firearms near a funeral. Those are two separate things; apples and oranges.

 

[wrightme]

You cannot "delay", even temporary, an immutable right. What must be found is the area where there is no apparent conflict of right -- since rights do not overlap.

Yes, you can. If one Right inhibits the Right of another, yes.
If Free Speech were an immutable Right, there would be no grounds for libel or slander cases.

It seems to me that a distance does not achieve this goal. It is quite arbitrary. However, one side has the right to protest, and the other to have their funeral unmolested and, when on property not open to the public, in privacy. I would suggest that a law prohibiting acts which interfere with a funeral or its procession might be better placed at the divide of the distinct, non-overlapping rights. Protesting would certainly qualify unless they were in no way preventing the normal conduction of the funeral (for example, no loudspeakers just outside 300'. Free speech would have to be accomplished at volumes levels such that are not disruptive to the funeral proceedings.)

I suppose you might make such distinction, and in support of this, you could check the Westboro history and see if a law that is worded differently might be possible.

 

[wrightme]

See, you DO understand the point I was making. You just seemingly propose that it isn't applicable to one case, but for YOUR example, it is applicable.

The potential illegality of such a verbal ejaculation doesn't indicate any mitigation of the right to free speech. Indeed, the right to free speech never overlaps with the right of theater owners and their patrons to fulfill the contract of putting on, or viewing, the show, on private property, not to mention the right not to be trampled of everyone present! Such an exclamation infringes upon each of these rights, and thus cannot be an aspect of any right of its own. On the other hand, free speech still exists in a movie theater. I'll leave it to your imagination how one might engage in "free speech" in a theater without violating anybody's rights, and thus be acting within your own right. Perhaps posting on OCDO using ocular implants might cut the mustard?

The fact that I may carry a firearm, but I may not shoot someone with it, does not suggest any mitigation of my right to bear arms, does it? No, because that right could never conceivably overlap with the right of another person not to be murdered.

I have noticed that many people use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument out of the context in which it is valid. For example, in suggesting that some or other right is "not absolute". Invariably, the right is quite absolute, but it never may be expected to extend into an area where others' rights are infringed.

That is exactly my point. So you should be agreeing with me, as opposed to disagreeing with me.

 

[wrightme]

Personally i think carrying a gun openly at a gunshot victims funereal is a very bad idea. The parents and family of that little girl just want there to be closure, and peace. Having firearms there (or at least visible) seems a bit inappropriate. No sense in scaring the attendees at the funereal. As for the sorry excuse of a church that those "people" claim to be a part of, they shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of ANYONE, much less a 9 year old girls funereal, that they wish to protest. Just my .02 worth. I would LOVE to go and be part of the barrier, but i think if i saw those "things" (protesters) i would probably have to kick at least a few of them right in their satanist faces.

Possibly, but remember that the premise of this portion of the discussion began with a suggested ban on firearms near a funeral.

 

[Grapeshot]

You say that OC'ing a Glock at a funeral for a person killed with a similar weapon isn't disruptive? Maybe it _shouldn't_ be disruptive in your thinking, but I bet opinions vary. You want to normalize guns so they aren't a distraction, but in many contexts, they do make people fearful.

Many in the OC community would reply that it's a matter of rights. to which I reply "I hate Westboro's speech, but it's a matter of rights."
It just seems hypocritical to ask for freedom to exercise one right while applauding restriction of another - a restriction based solely on how it makes some people feel, rather than bases on some public safety concern.

Many places in Europe restrict speech such that you can't say things intended to cause mental anguish. Is that where we are headed? Westboro's issue: they cause mental anguish in a small group of people at each funeral (and outrage among people who are truly unaffected by their actions. ) Unpopular speech is always the first to be silenced.

When you talk about Westboro do not put them in the same basket with well intended Americans. Do you really on a sincere, honest level think that they should qualify as a church? Their primary mission/business is to push you, trick you or otherwise cause you to make an error whereby they can file suit against you and collect as large a judgement as they may.

Do not talk legal to me about them, talk moral and ethical - someone you'd like to have as a friend or neighbor. They are like the little hoodlum in the alley taunting the family dog AND your children. He might provoke you into yelling and cursing him - then he can run home and tell his momma what a bad man you are .... and the judge will likely agree.