“F A G” Protesters at Funerals

[chadknowslaw]

GSM--

You are talking about Time Place and Manner restrictions, which ARE legal in the US. However, the restrictions have to be reasonable and still allow for free expression. A boundary of "no protests within 500 feet of a funeral" would probably be constitutional but "no protesting funerals" is not.

Phelps crew is very smart in their manner--they will notify the local law enforcement, usually by fax, of the time and place where they plan to picket. Phelps do this for their own protection, plus it allows the local police to make sure there are enough officers in place to keep anyone from getting hurt. Phelps crew will only picket on public property, such as a sidewalk. They picket for a very short time and leave. They videotape their pickets, so if someone assaults them there will be video evidence [oh wouldn't you love to pass by with a truck load of baseballers and 1000 frozen water balloons???].

I don't like what they say, but they have a right to their opinion and they go to great length to make sure they are protesting within the boundaries of the law.

When old man Phelps finally kicks off, I want to protest HIS funeral.

[desslock]

Well is it okay to yell 'fire' in a crowded room/theatre?
I think to limit Phelps to outside private property is not infringing on his rights of free speech one bit. It is something that should be done, least in my view.

Good points. Hmmmm... the right to hollar... Is that an enumerated right, or just implied???

I know from going to the University of Texas that there is one "designated free speech zone" on the West Mall of campus, which is the only place they would let people protest the school's 1980s evil investments in South Africa, or marching against the Pinochet government, or for the Sandinistas, or boycotting grapes (No Uvas), etc.

Just don't take that over to the South Mall, or a policeman will arrest you.

Legacies from old UT President Frank Erwin, who in the sixties stopped funding the college newspaper The Daily Texan because it printed opposing views of his administration, and he made the famous blunt statement "We do not fund what we do not control."

Free Speech also has to be tempered with what other rights it abrogates, such as 'hate'. The law in Austriai that you speak of is in relation to denying that it existed, not to what extend it existed. There is a difference.

Why does free speech have to be tempered in the way you describe? I think you dive into a real big mess if you begin talking about "hate speech." For example, I was watching a call in show on CSPAN this morning, where one caller during the course of his remarks about the Dubai Ports purchase, he called the President a "communist and socialist" numerous times, and also stated that he exgaged in acts of treason, which of course required impeachment proceedings.

Why doesn't that promote hatred and false ideas? What if I wrote a book making the case that the Feds explicitly blew up the levees in New Orleans to flood out the black residents? That was actual testimony from several witnesses during the House Katrina hearings last Fall.... I think there's lots in that which implies racial hatred based on complete fantasy.

Furthermore, isn't picking and choosing good speech from bad speech rather cavalier? I recall that Chief Justice Warren Burger argued that pornography was not protected speech because it was purient and contained no educational or social value. That was his arbitrary line in the sand.

Just some thoughts on a complicated and interesting subject.

Steve

[gaystoryman]

Why does free speech have to be tempered in the way you describe? I think you dive into a real big mess if you begin talking about "hate speech." For example, I was watching a call in show on CSPAN this morning, where one caller during the course of his remarks about the Dubai Ports purchase, he called the President a "communist and socialist" numerous times, and also stated that he exgaged in acts of treason, which of course required impeachment proceedings.

Run in sentance. Hate to incite to riot or commit acts of violence cannot be considered free speech. One thing to stand up and say you 'hate this person or that, or even this race or that' but another to say 'they should all be gassed' and then have some moron go do it. You can yell all you want, far as I am concerned, but you cross the line of free speech when you incite people to commit crimes or justify crimes even, because after all they are only (insert minority of choice here).

The austrian law is more to do with that than to say you can't have free speech. Even in Canada we have similar hate laws, and its worked I think pretty good. Course the Hitler Lovers disagree like Ernst Zundel and Keigstra (not sure of that spelling) but to promote hatred, whatever reason isn't about an opinion or free speech... it is about violence.

[maxpower]

Unpopular speech need to be protected more that any other type. I am not for ANY laws that would try to control people freedom of speech no matter how much I personally don’t like it.

[maxpower]

Its a real slippery slop when you start picking and choosing what speech you fill is promoting hate, or something you find offensive.

[Marc]

they protested Coretta Scott King's funeral?
why the fuck did they do that?
http://www.godhatesfags.com/photos/2..._lithonia.html
and why didnt that get any press?

[desslock]

You can yell all you want, far as I am concerned, but you cross the line of free speech when you incite people to commit crimes or justify crimes even, because after all they are only (insert minority of choice here).

Well, here we have two people looking at one thing, and reaching seperate conclusions.

I just had a jolly ol' time reading Wikipedia's fact packed entry on slander and libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

Steve

[XXXWriterDude]

All I know is that, if I had a gun on me at the funeral for someone I loved who had died and one of these nut-mongers showed up and protested, they would not be breathing for very much longer.