1 This seems like an acceptable and judicious limitation on protests. In my opinion, this wouldn't infringe on any first amendment rights, as I would not consider these demonstrations "peaceable" assembly.

2 Rep. Mike Rogers would do well to write this legislation to include all the funerals the Phelps followers target with their hateful protests. They don't just protest at military funerals. They also go after the funerals of victims of AIDS and hate crimes.

3 There is no decency left in America, and it's about time to start busting heads to teach people some manners.

4 I agree with such legislation in principle, but it is probably unconstitutional.

5 Time for local and federal law enforcement to declare these hatemongers as 'invisible' and 'non-existant', and let the brothers-in-arms of the deceased take care of the matter as they see fit.

6 Or, to treat them like barracks thieves.
You know: "If the funeral of your loved one is marred by the presence of these morons, detain them and bring them to the Police. Under no circumstance are you to harm them in any way; but if they happen to fall down a couple of flights of stairs on the way in, it's not your fault that they are clumsy."

7 I don't know about it being unconstitutional. Free speech does have limits. This would not silence or censor them. They're just being told to move the platform. There is a level of irony here. They assert their freedom of speech, but protest against other freedoms like career choice and lifestyle.

8 I agree with you, Oyster, on the irony here, and I think these protectors are bottom feeders who deserve to be shot. But their speech is constitutional.

Their speech is political. Abhorrent, yes, but political. Political speech (as opposed to commercial speech) is given the highest protection under the US Constitution. A military funeral is speech, and arguably political speech. In the context of this war, it is therefore a political event, and, like any other political event, the protestors are free to come with counterspeech.

I'm not saying I agre with the Christian Taliban protestors here, but I don't see how such a law can comply with the Constitution.

9 ProCynic - I would argue that this speech, coming at a funeral, could be considered "fighting words" or "provoking speech". Therefore, limiting the time and place is permissable under the Constitution.

10 You can argue that, Airdale, but I don't think it will win, given the current jurisprudence. The courts tend to give the greater weight to the political element of the speech.

11 I could be wrong but, I think the young man on the right in the p-shop pic is a protest warrior from the NYC chapter.

12 ProCynic: I would argue that these funerals are private events. The military is participating only at the request and with the permission of the grieving family members.

Therefore, what you call political speech is actually harrassment. I'd like to see the church members charged, as often as possible, to keep them busy with other things.

I'd also like the ban to cover ALL funerals, not just military ones.

13 I'm not saying I agre with the Christian Taliban protestors
I'll point this out, each time people say it. Read up Fred Phelps past, and who are the members of his "Church" His "Church" is his house, he is a disbarred Lawyer, most of his children are lawyers, and are attendees.
Do you see the big picture:
chant evil, vile things at funerals, get assaulted sue municipality.

Calling them "Christian" and saying they're making a political statement is ignorant of the facts -- also look at the 7 million dollar lawsuit he has against a city in regards to his protests.

14 DPB:

First of all, thanx for responding to my comment directly. I am honored honor, particularly since Jawa Report has become daily reading for me.

I think characterizing military funerals as private events is possible but problematic at best. The first issue would be the definition of the cemetery. Is the cemetery a public forum? That would not necessarily depend on whether the cemetery is publicly or privately owned. If the cemetery is considered a traditional public forum, then you have a major problem trying to get a military funeral considered a private event in this public forum.

And could the cemetery be considered a public forum? Very easily. Political statements are made at funerals all the time. Paul Wellstone and CSK come to mind. Counter protesting outside the church on a public street is legitimate and constitutional. Political statements are made at cemeteries all the time. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address arguably fits into this bill. That would be my first argument in any brief I was writing opposing such a law.

What you're arguing for is a content-based restriction on political speech. A time, place and manner restriction this ain't, because it is the funeral itself that gives the protestors, they would argue, the opportunity to be heard by people who disagree with them, which is why you can protest a political convention or a presidential visit.

Again, I think these protestors are the scum of the earth, and their abuse of the First Amendment may end up limiting it for all of us, but even I could put together an argument that would sway the court that their despicable actions are still constitutional. And if I could do it, the vile Laurence Tribes of the world certainly could.

15 ProCynic,

Just out of curiosity, since you've demonstrated how a basic argument could be formed to defend the protesters, how would you argue it for the other side?

16 Oyster,

It would be difficult to do, but both DPB and I have outlined some possibilities here.

1. The funeral is a private event, so only private invitees are allowed into the premises.


2. While political speech is a fundamental right, the government has a compelling interest in protecting already grieving relatives from further trauma.

3. Beause of this compelling interest, the law would be a permissible time, place and manner restriction. The protestors can express their opinions, but not in a time, place or manner that would further exacerbate the grief of the survivors.

4. Finally, and don't underestimate the impact of this argument, what the protestors are doing is just wrong. It's hurtful, and it's intended to be hurtful, to people who are already hurt beyond imagination. It is such abuses of the First Amendment that cause people to lose respect for the First Amendment.

17 I must have misread the constitution, did I miss the section about "Freedom to harrass" via "Freedom of Speech" ? How is protesting a funeral with a sign saying "Thank God for IED's" or "America turned itself over to Fags, now he's sending them home in bodybags" political speech? against whom? the dead body?, or the family of the victim?
It's harrassment, pure and simple. There are laws to protect you from harrassment via the medium of communication: telephone, written word and internet.
I guarantee if the KKK turned up at a black persons funeral with a sign with racial slurs on it, there would be an end to this tomorrow.

18 Unfortunately I know one of these men that are getting "rallied" against. Knowing the bible as I do, though I would have to say this it does not show a connection to soldiers and to homosexuality. Mind you I am all for the rights of every human being and how they are to live their own life, that is why we are in America. I thought though in the bible we are to love each other as we would ourselves. God's teachings are about love and respect for fellow man. Jesus lead an army through the desert, he fought against his enemies, was his army all "fags". I find theses people and their statements very hypocritical. They as many radical groups find one small section of the bible and focus on that aspect, while ignoring the rest of the ENTIRE book. At least I know that I will die with God's true words and the people who spread hate as these people do, know not GOD and surely will be damned for it. In the end to all this raving, I do have to agree that it is harassment, invasion of privacy, and in no way peaceful. It is a hate demonstration and agreeing with Dvec if KKK held up chantings and posters it would be just that a hate crime. This should not be for just the soldiers, but for all funerals gay, straight, black, white, male, female, young, old. Funerals are sacred in ALL religions, not just christianity. Some people celebrate it, some mourn. But none blasphemy it. It is revolting!

19 Davec,

Political speech and hate speech are not one and the same. Harrassment can only be acted upon in certain circumstances that are case specific and typically limited to an individual.

"Thank God for IED's" is disgusting, but is political speech -- opposition to the war. It's also not directed at an individual, but at an event.

20 Political speech? Identify the recipients of the message?

Can you tell me the political message of the sign "Thank God for dead Miners" in regards to the Sago mining accident, how about "God hates fags" and "Matthew Shepard is in Hell" held up at his funeral? Political message please?

You see, just because the recipient was a Military person does not mean it is political in nature, it is harrassment pure and simple.

There is no church at Westbourogh, the church is held in Phelps basement, inside a military like compound, and consists mainly of his family [mostly lawyers] and himself [disbarred lawyer].
Irony is, if he just purchased weapons, Clinton would have burnt him down.

21 I.M. is correct. Bust their dam heads.

G-D loves Fags, but G-D hates what Fags do.

22 Actually, every protest they engage in is based on the tolerance of gays. They picket military funerals not because of war, but because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Their picketing of the funerals of gays and victims of AIDS is obvious. Any funeral they protest otherwise, ike the miners, they claim is because the deaths were retribution from God for tolerating gays. They're literally obsessed with homosexuality.

And ProCynic, thanks for your reply.

23 davec,

These guys are not the only group protesting military funerals. Anti-war protestors show up at funerals a lot as well. That was my primary frame of reference. But if gay activists can speak up in favor of rights, sometimes obnoxiously -- a cause with which I agree, BTW -- then I don't see why this group can't argue against it with equal obnoxiousness. At least from a constitutional standpoint. Reprehensible? Yes. Should these guys be aborted retroactively? Absolutely. But just because something is wrong does not make a prohibition thereof constitutional.

24 I find it irreprehensible how some people will fight for evil, if it's wrapped in the blanket of "freedom"
I find it important to note that "Freedom of Speech" has been used to defend the possession of child porn, and sedition both, does this make either worthy of protection?
It's very easy for people to let bad things happen to good people, when you're not a recipient of such actions, you might reconcider such behavior if those people attended the funeral of one of your family with signs like "Thank god for cancer" or "The wages of sin, are death" just because you have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't excise good judgement and decorum.

It is morally ambiguous to use "Freedom of speech" to defend people doing evil things, when it is against the spirit of the document, and the authors who penned it.

25 As a side note, the Constitution does not prohibit making fun of mentally challenge children, common decency however does. This is why this type of decision should be weighed like the "Fighting Words" doctrine

:

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [of which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

The decision has to be weighed as such:
Would banning protests at funerals create a totalitarian Government, or remove a valid means of protest against the Government? or should the rights of the family members, who are already suffering be paramount?
Does being a Postman, and thus employed by the Government also mean people should be able to protest at their funeral, does the act of protesting a funeral injure or enlighten the attendants?

Just because something is not prohibited in the Constitution does not mean that we should not pass laws against it, I don't believe for one minute the Founding Fathers would have allowed it to be used as a tool to extend the suffering, and inflict harm against grieving families, even if said deceased person was in the employ of the U.S Government.

Unless you can think why that is not the case?

26 Just spray them with a mixture of skunk oil limburger cheese,rotten eggs,and other foul smelling stuff like cow manure

27 What lovely political philosophies! However, screw all of that and just nuke the bastards! It'time to take back our country and have Waco family Bar-B-Q II! Case closed! You're welcome!

28 "Your rights end where mine begin."

The sad thing about this country is, if you're and asshole, but don't do anything illegal, you can spend your entire life being an asshole.

There used to be a time where if you were an asshole, someone could smash your face in to teach you a lesson.

When you CHOOSE to live in a particular society, you agree to follow it's rules, laws and customs. We enjoy free speech... but we're also bound by civil decency. If they want to protest, they can do it at a respectable distance... otherwise, let the pissed off family tear loose on them, and claim temp. insanity.

29 Ok...hmmm. I am currently in Iraq. I personally feel a lot of pain when I see this kind of thing going on. The real problem is that it is a media-stunt and an act constructed to create confrontation, thereby allowing for lawsuits, and the gain of monies from the winnings. These idiots relish in their media time and they further enjoy and encourage confrontations.

I have many funerals to attend when I get back to the US. I think that this law should be passed. Quite simply, in order to protect the protestors from due harm. After spending a year in Ramadi I think I just might act a little aggressively to someone chanting and spitting on one of my young Marines bodies moving to his final resting place. The irony is that the Marine died protecting the very right to protest.

If it were my son or brother, I would call his unit and have the entire Battalion or Company attend the funeral. If they were too far away then I would go to the local National Guard or a Reserve Center, find someone who wears a uniform. When these protestors show up simply march up to them, online, and stand nose to nose, with military discipline, and HOLD THE LINE. Let them know how truly insignificant and pathetic they are. When, if, I get back to California, this will be the solution for me and my Marines and their families.

I think most of the commentary on this board is accurate though. This will be a constitutional debate. I think under the fighting words clause this could gain some traction, simply due to when I first read about these anti-Americans, I wanted to kill them. I wanted to go to their home and plant an IED in their living room and remove their infection from the earth. Then I could leave a letter on a sign saying this explosion was GODS RETRIBUTION. And today, as I stand over the body of a fellow Marine, 18 years old, with no lower torso due to an IED blast, I am reminded that he was a devout Christian with a wife and a new baby boy and that he doesn’t and will never deserve this kind of disrespect.

The first amendment is a honorable thing and should be upheld at the cost of human life. So should the freedom to practice religion, a Christian burial, also be protected. Something is always being infringed upon. It is up to us, the voting public, to decide when enough is enough. How far will we let things go? When is it TOO far?

I am a simple man with simple ways, but I know this; these people have caused a lot of pain to good American people. Sooner or later…what goes around, comes around!

The Gunny

30 or we just shoot CS Grenades at them until they run away, either way...

The Gunny

31 Thank you for your service Gunny. My respects to any fallen fellow Marines.

G-D's speed to you Gunny, and any active duty Marine.

32 Thanks,Leatherneck and if I am reading your call-sign correctly, Semper Fidelis.

33 Amendment I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Do people actually know what the first amendment says?

The Gunny said it right; the protestors in question are infringing on the first sentence of the First Amendment. The establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof. Every funeral I have been to, have been religious in nature and the protesting is affecting the "spiritual healing" that takes place. Is it condonable for a one constitutional freedom to affect another?

34 Regarding Jacobite's post above, I think that this argument won't work because *private citizens* (i.e. the protesters) are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, not the *government*.

The post by davec on March 20th is probably the key to this. I don't think this "church" has any interest in actually making a point, but rather they want to be restricted, beaten up, arrested, etc. Then, they can sue. This is a money-making venture, not a political statement.

What is the penalty for wrongful citizen's arrest? Suppose that well-meaning citizens detained the protesters and took them to jail. I think a strong case could be made by the citizens that they did this simply by their interpretation of hate crime laws. It might actually not even be illegal. I mean, how is it that the statements the protesters make are not assault? Aren't there laws on the books regarding this?

JT

35 I'm no fan of Howard Stern, but why is it that offensive speech is protected for these bozos and not Stern? That's a minor aside.

Okay... I think I've got it. I'm pretty sure that those "protesters" are in it for money. Perhaps the way to fight this is simply to pass a federal law that prohibits people from monetary compensation from lawsuits that allege restriction of free speech unless they can prove that there was a financial loss due to the restriction. Better yet, suppose that a law was passed that any monetary damages from awarded in restriction-of-freedom-of-speech lawsuits would have to be donated to fund AIDS research! That covers both bases... eh?

Ha!

JT

36 I attended one of the fallen soldiers funerals last month. I'm in no way religious and I'm against war, but the vicous nature of the Westboro Baptist Church & their protests tore me apart inside. The WBC never showed up, but the Patriot Guard Riders did. I held flags with men, women and children to honor the grieving families and their recent tragedy. As friends and family made their way from the funeral service to the cemetary on a flag-lined road, mostly all of them were crying. They waved at us, mouthing the words 'thank you' & 'god bless'. I know I did the right thing.

I'm working on a paper about Fred Phelps & the WBC for a world religions class. I wanted to thank everyone involved with this discussion. You really helped me to understand the issue at hand.

37 Hey folks,

I've never posted here before. I applaud the passing of this act. Having grown up a military dependant, I've been to lots of funerals, and I think people need space to heal.

However, as a member of the LGBT community (and a Christian) I can't help but feel slighted by our legislature. Somehow, it has been perfectly okay for the Phelps cult to hate and hurt our community at funerals for years, but now that dominant culture folks have to deal with him, it's a horrible thing? My only grace in this is that there are LGBT folks who serve in our military, and should they die in service to our country, at least they won't have to put up with Phelps at their funeral.

I'm glad this happened to the Phelps crew, but I wish the very awesome veterans group who protects the grieving families from this cult would come to protect all of us.

Have a good day.