ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials

[motivez]

King, I don't think anyone is arguing that their position has merit, or saying they like their message

But isn't part of what those soldiers sign up and fight and sometimes die for to protect the ability of someone to speak that message (even while others dislike it intensely) and the values our country was founded upon?

I mean, in an ideal world free speech would only be used for what we view as 'good' and we wouldn't have to worry about shit like this, and these people wouldn't be so fucking crazy.. but we don't live in that world.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Imagine what your mother would remeber, the day she put her son into the ground there were a crowd of people cheering his death and disrupting the funeral. You think she and other people might remeber that?

I think she'd think those people were assholes

If she let it "taint her memory of me" she wouldn't be much of a mother though

[kinggovernor]

So I ask where does free speech end? Why can protestors be limited to outside public buildings? Don't they have a right to be heard?

No the government needs to be to conduct its business and this is how I see this issue. If they want to protest do it is such a way that it doesn't interfer with the work being done. That means either a silent protest or move them somewhere else out of earshot

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

No the government needs to be to conduct its business and this is how I see this issue. If they want to protest do it is such a way that it doesn't interfer with the work being done. That means either a silent protest or move them somewhere else out of earshot

So how did the protest interfere with the "work being done"? Did the funeral stop happening.

Offending people != interference. People don't have a right to not be offended.

[JaJae]

I think a neat way to prevent this is before the funeral the government can lease the land temporarily to the closest kin of the dead. Then they can have certain ownership rights over what takes place until their lease expires.

All it would take would be for someone to write up a contract and keep reusing it. It would have to pass Congress though, etc before such a program could go into effect.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think a neat way to prevent this is before the funeral the government can lease the land temporarily to the closest kin of the dead. Then they can have certain ownership rights over what takes place until their lease expires.

All it would take would be for someone to write up a contract and keep reusing it. It would have to pass Congress though, etc before such a program could go into effect.

There is sucha hughe problem that even more law is needed?

Ignoring these people is the best way to make them go away

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

There is sucha hughe problem that even more law is needed?

Ignoring these people is the best way to make them go away

In my opinion anytime a soldier comes home dead and is disrepected, we must do something.

[thomez]

Those soldiers are as much fighting for their rights as they are yours or mine.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

In my opinion anytime a soldier comes home dead and is disrepected, we must do something.

Once again people do not, and should not have the right to not be offended.

This is really what it is all about, someone getting offended.

The question is why do you care about a bunch of random people not respecting a dead solider? Pleny of people have no respect for the armed forces at all.

Ignoring the protesters is the best way to deal with them.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Once again people do not, and should not have the right to not be offended.

This is really what it is all about, someone getting offended.

The question is why do you care about a bunch of random people not respecting a dead solider? Pleny of people have no respect for the armed forces at all.

Ignoring the protesters is the best way to deal with them.

People should have the right to bury their child without hecklers if they choose. We can do it in a private funeral home. These families deserve the same.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

People should have the right to bury their child without hecklers if they choose. We can do it in a private funeral home. These families deserve the same.

Well then do it private. If you do something in public, then the public should eb able to make their opinion known.

What is the point of having free speech rights if all they protect is speech that is popular or unoffensive? That sort of speech doesn't need to be protected.

It boils down to someone being offended, and why should one group of people have the right to avoid it public, and not another?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

People should have the right to bury their child without hecklers if they choose. We can do it in a private funeral home. These families deserve the same.

What if the guy who died in Afghanistan wanted the hecklers to have the right to be there?

[motivez]

Once you start making exceptions it really does become a lot easier to justify doing it in other cases.. and who gets to decide then?

One of the cornerstones of our way of government is the majority being unable to oppress a minority simply because they dislike what their viewpoint is.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

So how did the protest interfere with the "work being done"? Did the funeral stop happening.

Offending people != interference. People don't have a right to not be offended.

Their loud screaming interfers with the military being able to properly execute the mission, which is to deliver a full honors military funeral.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Their loud screaming interfers with the military being able to properly execute the mission, which is to deliver a full honors military funeral.

Sounds like you are just fishing for reasons.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thomez

omg the ACLU is representing a super-conservative group...

they vote democratic

Phelps claims his political roots lie in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times and previously supported Democrat Al Gore in 1988 and 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rev._Fred_Phelps

in fact, phelps ran for office as a democrat :wink:

the mere fact that they are so anti-war/anti-soldiers i think would immediately take them off the 'conservative group' list.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Kytro

So how did the protest interfere with the "work being done"? Did the funeral stop happening.

Offending people != interference. People don't have a right to not be offended.

what about a right to privacy?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

what about a right to privacy?

right to privacy?

some originalist you are

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

they vote democratic



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rev._Fred_Phelps

in fact, phelps ran for office as a democrat :wink:

the mere fact that they are so anti-war/anti-soldiers i think would immediately take them off the 'conservative group' list.

they aren't anti-war/anti-soldier they are homosexual haters as their primary focus, your own article makes that crystal clear

let Phelps run as a democrat on his issues and see if he gets as many votes as David Duke did for the GOP, who not only won a seat in the 80s, but got a third of the vote in the governors race and a fifth in the senate race

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

they aren't anti-war/anti-soldier they are homosexual haters as their primary focus, your own article makes that crystal clear

let Phelps run as a democrat on his issues and see if he gets as many votes as David Duke did for the GOP, who not only won a seat in the 80s, but got a third of the vote in the governors race and a fifth in the senate race

the point is, he can't be labeled as either conservative or liberal. he can only be labeled as a freak.