I am ashamed to be from Indiana

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rebar, you are 100% correct

While I agree with your comment 100%---the caveat I would point out is that there appears to be alot more "fanatics" on the left compared to the right

As I recall, after Bush won the election in 2004, it was the leftist/liberal/socialist camp that posed the question, "Is it acceptable to shoot conservatives?"

This reveals their hatred, fanaticism and bitterness toward any who oppose them and the lengths to which they will go in order to get their way - including murder. And they say there is no culture war...

The leftist/liberal/Demosocialist fanatics hate America and all it stands for, our flag, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially our soldiers, who are now rightly viewed by the majority of Americans as heroes and the embodiment of strength, courage, honor and integrity.

These are four traits the leftist/liberal/Demosocialist fanatics despise because they themselves are completely and totally devoid of them.
 
Progunner...Not more than a week goes by where I don't see another member on TFL crop up and offer to shoot them there liberal scumbags.
 
You may be right about that gefen, but as I said above -
The leftist/liberal/Demosocialist fanatics hate America and all it stands for, our flag, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially our soldiers, who are now rightly viewed by the majority of Americans as heroes and the embodiment of strength, courage, honor and integrity.

These are four traits the leftist/liberal/Demosocialist fanatics despise because they themselves are completely and totally devoid of them.

They have proven it themselves - and in spades.
 
By your logic you would have supported the Klan picketing Rosa Parks' funeral

Absolutely. I may not agree with the message but I fought to preserve the right to say it.

I will begin by asking a few highly-germane questions: (1) are you a parent?, (2) have you ever served in the military?, and (3) have you ever lost a dear friend or loved one in combat?

Irelevant to the discussion of whether people have the right to speak their minds when and where they are able. By these questions you are saying that if I have not done the things you list, I am, somehow, inferior and my opinion isn't worthwhile because of that. That's called ad hominem and it's a furbotten technique.

I have read your post several times and decided to respond to it, notwithstanding my conviction that you are intentionally provoking members of the TFL Community, which is clearly prohibited (see Rule #3 re “trolling”).

I am no troll. See above. Many of the replies in this thread are in essence saying that these people support the right to free speech so long as they agree with the message or messenger. However, for those whom they disagree or whom they assert are disagreeable, then free speech is not allowed. This type of attitude is wrong. Free speech is held by the speaker. It is not a gift given by the listeners subject to revocation at whim.

It's the same deal as with a bulletin board/forum/list server. If one doesn't like the message, one is free to hit the back button. In life, one is free to just turn away and ignore those whom one desires to not listen to. Asserting that they cannot exercise their rights, especially if done at some morally objectional time/place, rejects the notion of freedom for all. One is either free or one isn't.
 
Paris Rioters Burn Ambulance and Stone Medics

Saturday, November 05, 2005

ACHERES, France — More than 250 predominantly Muslim youths were arrested in Paris' suburbs Saturday during the ninth straight day of rioting—and the worst day of arson—since the riots began more than a week ago.

Youths armed with gasoline bombs moved from Paris' poor, troubled suburbs to shatter the calm of higher-class towns, torching roughly 900 vehicles, a nursery school and other targets.

Police deployed small teams of officers backed by a helicopter to track and chase down youths who sped from one attack to another in cars and on motorbikes.

The violence — originally concentrated in neighborhoods northeast of Paris with large immigrant populations — is forcing France (search) to confront anger long-simmering in its suburbs, where many Africans and their French-born children live on society's margins, struggling with unemployment, poor housing, racial discrimination, crime and a lack of opportunity.

Triggered by the deaths of two teenagers who were electrocuted while fleeing from police, the unrest has taken on unprecedented scope and intensity. The violence hit far-flung corners of France on Saturday, from Rouen in Normandy (search) to Bordeaux in the southwest to Strasbourg (search) near the German border, but the Paris region has borne the brunt.

In quiet Acheres, on the edge of the St. Germain forest west of the capital, arsonists burned a nursery school, where part of the roof caved in, and about a dozen cars in four attacks over an hour that the mayor said seemed "perfectly organized."

Children's photos clung to the blackened walls, and melted plastic toys littered the floor. Residents gathered at the school gate demanded that the army be deployed or suggested that citizens band together to protect their neighborhoods.

Mayor Alain Outreman (search) tried to cool tempers.

"We are not going to start militias," he said. "You would have to be everywhere."

In one particularly malevolent attack, youths in the eastern Paris suburb of Meaux (search) prevented paramedics from evacuating a sick person from a housing project. They pelted rescuers with rocks, then torched the awaiting ambulance, an Interior Ministry official said.

By daybreak Saturday, 897 vehicles were destroyed — a sharp rise from the 500 burned a night earlier, police said. It was the worst one-day toll since the unrest erupted Oct. 27 following the accidental electrocution of the two teenagers who hid in a power substation, apparently believing police were chasing them.

Anger has spread to the Internet, with blogs mourning the youths.

Along with messages of condolence and appeals for calm were insults targeting police, threats of more violence and warnings that the unrest will feed support for France's anti-immigration extreme right.

"Civil war is declared. There will no doubt be deaths. Unfortunately, we have to prepare," said a posting signed "Rania."

"We are going to destroy everything. Rest in peace, guys," wrote "Saint Denis."

Police detained 258 people overnight, almost all in the Paris region, and dozens of them will be prosecuted, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said after a government crisis meeting. He warned of possibly heavy sentences for burning cars.

"Violence penalizes those who live in the toughest conditions," he said.

Most rioting has been in towns with low-income housing projects where unemployment and distrust of police run high. But in a new development, arsonists were moving beyond their heavily policed neighborhoods to attack others with less security, said a national police spokesman, Patrick Hamon.

"They are very mobile, in cars or scooters. ... It is quite hard to combat" he said. "Most are young, very young, we have even seen young minors."

There appeared to be no coordination between separate groups in different areas, Hamon said. But within gangs, he added, youths are communicating by cell phones or e-mails. "They organize themselves, arrange meetings, some prepare the Molotov cocktails."

In Torcy, close to Disneyland Paris, a youth center and a police station were set ablaze. In Suresnes, on the Seine River west of the capital, 44 cars were burned in a parking lot.

"We thought Suresnes was calm," said Naima Mouis, a hospital employee whose car was torched into a twisted hulk of metal.

On Saturday morning, more than 1,000 people took part in a silent march in one of the worst-hit suburbs, Aulnay-sous-Bois. Local officials wore sashes in the red-white-and-blue of the French flag as they filed past housing projects and the wrecks of burned cars. One white banner read "No to violence."

Anger was fanned days ago when a tear gas bomb exploded in a mosque in Clichy-sous-Bois, north of Paris — the same suburb where the youths were electrocuted.

Sarkozy also has inflamed passions by referring to troublemakers as "scum."

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin denied that police were to blame. The director of the Great Mosque of Paris, Dalil Boubakeur, who met Saturday with Villepin, urged the government to choose its words carefully and send a message of peace.

"In such difficult circumstances, every word counts," Boubakeur said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174670,00.html
 
I will never protest at a funeral of someone who was related to a policy I oppose, even the Brady's funeral(if they hail them as "heros" of the society". That is just too disrespectful for me to ever accept. Protesting the war at the funeral of a soldier by using his death as an agenda is just plain disgusting.
 
...those on the left think those on the right who are grieving the loss of a loved one should be denied the right to grieve unmolested by those on left..here is an example..when Sen. Ed Kennedy finally dies..should those who think his policies that were a terrible effect on America have the right to hold up signs saying America is a little better now that he is gone...????..well why not...are protest rights only available for SOME Americans...but very few on the right would do something so cruel to those who would mourn Ed Kennedy's passing...maybe that is the difference between the two poles???...remeber the golden 60s? when hippies would tell relatives of a fallen soldier in Vietnam that they are glad he died by the hands of Communist fighters....that is a fact many a now-short haired money-lover middle-aged American thinks can be buried in his or her memory....
 
Absolutely. I may not agree with the message but I fought to preserve the right to say it.

No, you're still wrong. The family has the right to be let alone. The right to privacy is primary. Anyone who would do such despicable acts at a funeral, whether the soldier's, Rosa Parks' or Ted Kennedy's is just as wrong as the moron who thinks his RKBA privilages him to shoot into the air on the Fourth of July. http://www.lawrence.edu/fast/boardmaw/Privacy_brand_warr2.html
 
Rob P . . . again, I believe you badly miss the essential point

”Irelevant to the discussion of whether people have the right to speak their minds when and where they are able”.

No one – certainly not I – has suggested that individuals do not have the RIGHT to “speak their minds, when and where they want.” The question is not one of rights; rather, it is one of propriety, appropriateness, good judgment, and decency. By demonstrating in clear view of a fallen warrior’s interment services, protestors do NOTHING to influence the Washington-based policy and decision makers, but they do a great deal to offend and to hurt the service-person’s family, friends, and community. Significantly, those insensitive and unseemly actions are sure create memories that will last lifetimes (take it from one who knows, based on personal experiences).

”Many of the replies in this thread are in essence saying that these people support the right to free speech so long as they agree with the message or messenger”.

No, not at all; it is only the timing and the venue to which I/we object. If these same dissenters – with precisely the same message – want to demonstrate in front of The White House, The Capitol, The Pentagon (and so forth), it is not only their right to do so, but it is also suitable and appropriate. However, when demonstrators exercise their right to protest at a military funeral or at a military hospital where the wounded are being treated, their conduct – although legal – is ghoulish, unsuitable, intentionally hurtful, and tasteless.

To summarize, you keep suggesting that we want to limit the free-speech and protest rights of the demonstrators. That is NOT true. We only want them to deliver their messages appropriately: at times, places, and in ways that do not offend warfighters, their grieving friends and families, and their mourning communities.
 
Rob P. said:
Many of the replies in this thread are in essence saying that these people support the right to free speech so long as they agree with the message or messenger. However, for those whom they disagree or whom they assert are disagreeable, then free speech is not allowed. This type of attitude is wrong. Free speech is held by the speaker.
Not at all, Rob.

What people are trying to communicate is that your right to speech stops when it intrudes upon my right to privacy and the common law right to public decency (see below).

What you seem to forget is that your right can be legally curtailed as to time, place and/or manner. It has been this way since the beginning of this country.
Rob P. said:
Asserting that they cannot exercise their rights, especially if done at some morally objectional time/place, rejects the notion of freedom for all.
Actually it can. It's called disturbing the peace. Although state laws differ on this, if someone at the funeral had made the charge to the police, they would (most likely) have then been empowered to halt the demonstration. The "peace" of the police cannot be disturbed, but that of the citizens can be.
 
"What you seem to forget is that your right can be legally curtailed as to time, place and/or manner."

So if that applies to the First, it must also apply to the Second, huh? Nothing is absolute?

"The question is not one of rights; rather, it is one of propriety, appropriateness, good judgment, and decency."

I would hazard that the protestors have these precise questions about the war.....

I'm not sure if there is a more appropriate place to protest a war than the funeral of a soldier. Bottom line is that war is about death.

..."without picketing or protesting within sight or sound of the gravesite is nothing but scum. Such tactics reveals the true nature of their caracter; we have come to expect acts such as this from leftist/liberal/socialist scumbags."

Substitute "abortion clinic" for gravesite, what character is revealed about the Right to Lifers who protest there? Are'nt abortions a private time of dealing with death? Are those deaths "wrong", so conservatives protest them? Where is the graciousness in that?.

Or does protesting in an effort to prevent further deaths nullify the consideration for the family or patient?
 
" if someone at the funeral had made the charge to the police, they would (most likely) have then been empowered to halt the demonstration"

Most likely not. It is ironic that a couple people here have taken the police to task for not doing anything, yet how often have cops been referred to as JBTs when they run afoul (possibly) of the 2, 4, 5 or other Amendments, but it is OK to ignore the 1st? The job of the police is to keep THE peace, not YOUR peace.
 
To summarize, you keep suggesting that we want to limit the free-speech and protest rights of the demonstrators. That is NOT true. We only want them to deliver their messages appropriately: at times, places, and in ways that do not offend warfighters, their grieving friends and families, and their mourning communities.

Which is precisely my point. If you (or anyone for that matter) get to choose WHEN, WHERE, HOW, and WHAT someone gets to vent, then there is no FREE speech. It's controlled speech. Or "approved" speech. So when you "only want them to deliver their messages...at times, places, and in ways..." you're saying that YOU want to control what they say, when they say it, and how they say it. If that's not a "limit on the free speech and protest rights of the demonstrators" I don't know what would be.

What people are trying to communicate is that your right to speech stops when it intrudes upon my right to privacy and the common law right to public decency (see below).

Public decency laws do not generally apply to speech. Profanity is recognized as free speech and yet no one will admit that it's "decent". However, profanity cannot be censored in a public place. It is your right to curse all you wish on the sidewalk. The gov't can ask you to move on down the sidewalk, but they can't require that you be silent. Even if what you say is indecent.

As for your right to privacy, there is no such right when people are in a public place. (see the recent decisions on upskirt videotaping.) Thus, protesting against the war and demonstrating on a public sidewalk CANNOT intrude upon your privacy. You don't have any in that time or place.

What you seem to forget is that your right can be legally curtailed as to time, place and/or manner. It has been this way since the beginning of this country.

Peaceful assembly to ask for "redress" from the gov't in a public place is not subject to curtailment. Law enforcement traditionally must declare the assembly to be unlawful and command the participants disburse. Failure to do so results in arrests. Most (90%+) are tossed out as an unlawful encroachement upon constitutional rights (which is why some demonstrators are pros at demonstrating. They know their arrests will not result in punishment, jail, or fines). Gov't must prove that this person, at that time, in that place was not "peacefully demonstrating". That's a tough thing to do in today's climate.

You also allude to disturbing the peace. Distrubing the peace requires that the activity to be curtailed is against the standards of the community. That's "community" not individual or group of individuals or even mourners at a funeral. Peaceful protests against governmental actions are NOT something that goes against community standards. In fact, such protests are part of the very fabric of our society and the communities which are contained within that society. Notice that there is a difference between PEACEFUL protests and just protests or other activities which are not peaceful. There is no indication in this instance of anything other than peaceful protests. Thus, so long as the protests are peaceful, there can be no disturbing the peace violation. (For a clear example of this: See the nazi demonstrations and the controversy they give rise to. Even though they seem to provoke violent responses, THEY are never charged with disturbing the peace because what THEY do is peaceful. It's the onlookers who are actually disturbing the peace. Same deal here.)

What is being discussed here is a MORAL OBLIGATION to not protest during a funeral. Somehow people equate that into a legal violation of some sort. This is not the case. Free speech is not a moral issue. Content is not a moral issue. The chilling effect upon speech that would occur because someone would limit protests to a time, place, & manner undefined would be incredible and would harm the fabric of one of our foremost rights.

Worse, there are those who continue to post this drivel on internet forums just so that they can provoke these types of mindless discussions. You notice that the original party has not replied to the thread? You also notice that most of those who profess to be apalled at the insensitivity of the protestors are basing their outrage upon emotional and moral grounds? This is because there is no legal basis for their commentary. Nor is there a social benefit to this type of discussion. It's a cause used to promote conflict and discord disguised under a cloak of morality, phoney patriotism, and testosterone.

In the end you must ask why is there no citation to legal precedent to support the idea that protesting during a funeral is illegal? Because there isn't any is the only answer you'll find. Any other basis for curtailment of the protests is in itself unlawful. Even if the basis is on moral grounds. One does not have the right to violate the rights of others even if one believes one is morally vindicated in doing so.

For this I'll take the high ground and say that while the acts are in bad taste, they are in LEGAL bad taste and anyone who believes otherwise is entitled to their beliefs. However, that doesn't make what happend wrong or illegal or subject to censorship. Railing about the lack of morals or decency by some people also doesn't cut it. It's not a morality or decency issue.
 
Protestors

Here's the problem I have. The anti-war protestors seem to have the opinion that many on the left do, IMO. They believe THEY have the right to free speech. However, if I object to whatever they say, that is not MY exercise of free speech, but a stifling of theirs. How does that work out exactly? The first one to talk gets a pass and the next one is stomping on the 1st ammendment? No, that doesn't work out either. They seem convinced they have a perfect right to respond to my statements. Hmmm, I must not be understanding something correctly.

On a related note, there is a relatively small group of protestors at the front gate of Walter Reed Army Medical Center every Friday night. According to the group that runs it (Code Pink) this is a "vigil", not a protest. Couldn't tell that by the signs and comments.
 
So what of the rights of the family to peacefully assemble?

If this form of free speech is legal, then the law is wrong. The end purpose of law is to protect the public peace. Laws are created by the consent of the governed so that rule by lex talionis is not needed. Whenever the rule of law fails in such a gross manner it is inevitable that citizens will sooner or later find the need to resort to the law of the talon. How very sad that we must descend into anarchy.

Rob P. in the end it seems you advocate mob rule. I find it helpful at this point to place you on my ignore list, if for no other reason than to prove that even in the commons your freedom of speech is not absolute.
 
If someone speaks about a public controversy and you don't like what they say, then you can set up your own public soapbox and compete for supporters who feel as you do. This is your right to free speech.

What you cannot do, is take away someone else's public soapbox and say that the reason you did that was because they bothered you. That's censorship.

The rights of the family (mourners) to peacefully assemble have not been violated. They don't have to right to enforce quiet upon others when they assemble. They just have the right to get together and abide by the law.

Here's a valid example: Say the family was in a public park. You know, trees, grass, picnic tables, etc. At the next site is a birthday party for some 5 year olds. Big party, lots of kids, lots of noise and activity. Does the family in mourning have the right to go over to the other site and demand that the kids stop screaming, popping balloons, and running around? Not ask, demand. Upon pain of punishment or social outcasting (shunning)?

Of course not. What the mourning family has is a choice. Either continue on as they can or leave to find a more suitable place for their assembly. Same thing with the funeral. The mourners can either continue on as best they can or not. The fact that they can't have a funeral just any ol' place does limit their choices but they still have them.

As for the law being wrong, you're misunderstanding the intent. The law protects you from those who would prevent you from voicing your opinion and protects others from your efforts to silence opposition to your beliefs. There is no law preventing you from opposing those ideals which you believe to be wrong so long as you do so in the prescribed manner. This is called public debate and that cannot occur if one side or the other is not allowed to fully participate.

As for protecting the public peace; so long as everyone has an opportunity to be heard and there is no attempt to circumvent that opportunity, then there can be no disruption to the peace. It is only when there are curtailments to the opportunity that the peace becomes disturbed.

Meek, I am an Attorney at Law and have publically stated such on this forum. As an Attorney I believe in the rule of law to the depths of my soul. Sir! Do not attempt to insult me with your petty machinations about ignore lists. I do not care about you or your personal problems.
 
Rob P.

Its just plain bad manners and rude and shows a lack of freakin character. A funeral is paying your respects to the dead person not a place to state your political preferences..

a headless chicken has more sense than protesters who do stuff like that.
 
This thread shows exactly why MOST Liberal Democrats are looked down upon by mainstream America.

1. You are protesting the wrong person/people--your arguement is/should be with the government.
2..It shows a lack of morality and feelings for the mother.
3. Nobody has stated that they shouldn't be allowed to protest---only the time and place.
4. So your arguement is that you should have the right to act like morons, hurt the feelings of the family, and protest the wrong person--just because you can?!:barf:
5. For the last time---if you still insist on doing something this dumb, simply because you can---then EVERYBODY has a right to tell you you shouldn't and call you an idiot for doing so.
6. Is it any wonder that your party is mostly made up of lesser educated, anti gun, anti religion zealots!:barf: :barf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top