I am ashamed to be from Indiana

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its just plain bad manners and rude and shows a lack of freakin character.
Click to expand...

It's not about morals, character, or manners. It's about the right to voice your opinion when in public. :( I agree these people were probably insensitive to the needs of the mourners but they were legally OK doing what they did.

A funeral is paying your respects to the dead person not a place to state your political preferences..
Click to expand...

First, they weren't doing this AT the funeral. They were protesting on the sidewalk outside the cemetary. Secondly, see post #35 and above.

a headless chicken has more sense than protesters who do stuff like that.
Click to expand...

Well I've seen a lot of headless chickens and all I can say is this... They're YUMMY with the right spices and side dishes. I never ate a protestor so I can't speak reliably about them. :D

Seriously though, it's not a moral issue although the intent (I believe) is to stir moral controversy for the pleasure of being able to say "I did that and I made all those other people mad too". Sit and think beyond the surface. Consider the whole picture. While it's not right to have an anti-war protest outside the cemetary during the funeral of a war veteran, it's also not right to say that it can't be allowed. Ever. So, balance the whole thing. On the one hand, respect for the dead and the funeral procession. On the other hand, the ability to voice your opinion to those who may be sympathetic to your position.

Neither hand wins, it's just a balancing act and they both get to play. Take away one side and you lose a hand (or viewpoint or opinion or even a good idea or 2 as been known to happen on occasion). Too often what I see is moral superiority being played as some sort of trump card. Unfortunately what results is stilted rigidity where nothing is allowed because nothing is condoned.

We don't live in a society were we are allowed to do things. Under the law, we can do anything we want so long as it isn't DISallowed (ie illegal). Many would have that reversed so that we would only be able to do the things we are allowed to do by those who would set the rules to an ever changing tune keyed to the winds of circumstance and whimsey. Which would be anarchy because no one would know where they stood as regards to legalities. So no one could or would obey the law.
 
MoW

#1 - I agree but I'm not the one who organized the protest. Maybe they thought they HAD the right "audience."

#2 - Maybe, maybe not. Saying so is a judgement call based on personal values. Others may or may not share your values and who is to say which side is the majority.

#3 - Limiting the time and place for the protest can be as effective as not allowing it to take place at all. For instance, what if all anti-war protests were required to take place at night, in an underground bunker, on a man made island 4 miles out to sea, and the bunker only has a max occupancy of 1 person. Of what use would the protest be in such a circumstance since no one could see or hear the opinions being voiced?

The fact that a protest is being made should be something to celebrate about. The fact that you can hear the words and agree or disagree without fear of reprisal is something special and found in no other country. Taking away or limiting those things cannot do anything but harm our society.

#4 - No. My argument is that if one believes so strongly that they feel compelled to do such - then neither they nor I or you should be punished for it. It is not unlawful to be a jerk so why make it so? Limiting the ability of someone to protest except at a time, place, manner, and only with socially approved content effectively makes free protest as a jerk unlawful since the jerk could be fined or imprisoned just for being a jerk and speaking out of place. I don't know about you but I have been known on occasion to say and/or do things which could have labeled me as a jerk. It'd be a shame to have been put to death for it.

#5 - Of course you can. That's what free debate is all about. Congratulations, you're a winner!

#6 - "My party" is irelevant but for the record, I'm a Republican. Since that's "my party" I suppose that all the other little labels also apply? For sake of discussion I assume that the real intent here is to voice the opinion that "liberal democrats are the country's biggest problem becaue they're stupid illiterate anti-gun athiests". If that's the case, then I can personally refute your claims as I have met and know some highly intellegent and highly educated, pro-gun and devout democrats. As for the "zealot" part, I don't see many who share my opinion on this issue who are foaming at the mouth in an attempt to refute it on moral grounds.

I see that my position on this is stirring unneeded controversy in a direction we don't want to go. So, all I can say is THINK about the whole picture. It's not about you, me, or the guy in the theater seat next to you. It's about US and the fact that as long as we all cooperate we will continue forward in time. Cooperation requires that we all give a little to get a lot in return.
 
I read RKW's questions and will answer

1. I spent 8 years flying inside P3-C anti sub aircraft over the north atlantic.
2. Am i troiling, no
3 Do I have children, no. but if a son or daughter wanted to go into the millitary I would be proud of them.
I saw somthing on the news that sickend me, I was so shocked that I really couldnt believe what I was seeing.
I do believe in free speech, as much as I beilive in the right to own firearms.
I was not trying to upset any one or start arguments.
I was just so sickend that any one would be so evil to do what those people did that I only wanted to see if many felt the same way I did.
IF I hear of another funeral of a Great American near where I live I will go there not to say anything, not to beat the crap out of a protester.
I will go there and be quiet and pray to god for this life that was lost.
And dam any one that is so cras to show up only to protest.
If you think that these people have the right to protest a funeral like these people did I agree they do have the right.
If you think that what they did is right in protesting at that place and time, then I feel sorry for you, you dont deserve the rights that this Great American died for.
I am against the war, but we are over there, and I am 100% for the men and women that are over there fighting and dieing for your and my freedom.
And if you dont like it, I really dont care.
I have never had a bullet shot at me, not once. My millitary time was during peace. But I did spend many hours flying at 300 feet over water that in 3 minutes would kill you IF you made it into the water.
I say this not to get any ones thanks, I am saying this to show that I do understand what millitary people give up for yours and my freedom. They and I did by choice. If we dont back our millitary 100%, if we dont do every thing that we can as a people, white, black, yellow, brown, to back the men and women now over there then we dont deserve the freedoms that so many people gave up there lives for.
I had a best friend die, he died flying a hello to get the hostages out of the US embesy so many years ago. Jimmy Carter was the president at the time.
When he died the US government gave his wife $10,000 and one week to get out of base housing.
Did any one, any single person protest that this Great American died?
For get the reasion Carter sent them over.
Did any one protest his death, he was burnt so bad that dental records were used to prove who he was.
Only two people protested, his wife and daughter, I diddnt know about it until months later being in Iceland at the time.
Every one of us should morn the 2000+ that have died in the time we have been over there. Protest the war, do that. But morn there deaths, morn the famlies and there loss.
 
ONe more

"First, they weren't doing this AT the funeral. They were protesting on the sidewalk outside the cemetary. Secondly, see post #35 and above."

Within sight of the funeral party. They showed pictures on the news, you could see the protesters and the group at the funeral.
 
They showed pictures on the news, you could see the protesters and the group at the funeral.
Click to expand...
Good.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"

The more exposure showing these people for what they are, the more it hurts them at the polls. These people are rightly associated with the democratic party. The fewer democrats who get elected, means our gun rights are better protected.
 
..Rob...attorneys at law are not the highly respected profession they once were...in fact I can't count how many times I have heard your profession and the damage to daily life in America done by it told to me by SO MANY people I have heard and their sour view of the same profession...to live by the letter of law alone is not enough to have a healthy, peaceful society...that is where morailty and the golden rule can fill the missing gaps...because you would not want a somber moment such as a funeral to be molested by thoughtless, uncaring people who had no regard for your feelings of the moment...you would not do the same to others even if you disliked the deceased and his past actions....but you really can't legislate thoughtfulness or tact..they must come from the individual not the STATE or law...tell me what purpose it serves to make mourners of a deceased more miserable..are they the makers of law or have the power to change policy..or is it a simple dislike for their fellow citizens that they percieve might have an opposing opinion on a subject????..................
 
To RobP

you said "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."

I have a question for you.
Are you a lawyer?
Have you ever served in the millitary?
"phoney patriotism,"
11-04-2005, 08:36 PM
Lets see how much time has it taken me to answer or comment since I started this DRIVLE?
Some of us have to work for a living. Unlike lawyers.
 
sendec said:
So if that applies to the First, it must also apply to the Second, huh?
Click to expand...
Even the founders believed there were limitations to rights. Think, involuntary servitude AKA imprisonment. If your rights were absolute, then the state has no power to send you to jail and deprive you of rights, while there.
sendec said:
Nothing is absolute?
Click to expand...
Only death and taxes...
sendec said:
Or does protesting in an effort to prevent further deaths nullify the consideration for the family or patient?
Click to expand...
In the case above, I think it would make a difference whether or not it was an actual protest against the war, or if it is, as I suspect, Fred Phelps & Co. demonstrating that your son/daughter deserved to die because he/she willingly participated in a war that was, according to them, part of "God's" revenge on America for extending equal rights to homosexuals.
sendec said:
Are'nt abortions a private time of dealing with death?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, how many mourners are accompanying the person killing their child? Or can we admit that the two are not analogous?

Rob? Free Speech simply does not trump everything.

A an attorney who abides by the law, and that same law has always held that speech may be regulated to Time/Manner/Place, how then can you say it is wrong to hold these particular protestors to that standard?

Now Ozzieman has not come back to say if this was a war protest or if it was Phelps & Co. protesting gays. Depending upon who it actually was, it would color my responses.

Because, as I said above, if it is the Westboro Baptists, then they don't simply protest the war. They hurl epitaphs at the mourners. They engage in intimidation. They actively denigrate the dead as deserving of death. I would venture to say, that the Courts would hold such disruptive protests in the same context that they hold anti-abortion demonstrations, should such come before them. For the same exact reasons.

I'm sure you've heard of harassing communications? This may or may not step over that criminal line.

Torts of outrage, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy (contrary to what you have said, funerals are in fact private affairs even when conducted on or in public cemeteries, at least in some jurisdictions), and harassment. Although civil, would that work for you?

I even suspect that in some jurisdictions, this type of display might even fall under the so-called "fighting words" doctrine. It does in Idaho, and perhaps that's why they cancelled their intended plans to "demonstrate" here last June.

Even if it turns out that I am wrong on some or all of my points, there is one thing that cannot be refuted, if you believe in the rule of law. And that is that such demonstrations can and should be held to TMP as are other such disruptive demonstrations.
 
A fool's words...."he who dies with the most toys, wins...
better words..."he who dies with the most toys, loses the most toys when he dies"....
 
I was going to stop here but

This is by far the stupidest thing I have ever read

"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."

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

What are you suggesting. they take the casket and go some place else, they were putting the casket in the ground, what would you recomend they do.
I want to hear your answer to this one Rob P
 
So Rob's a lawyer? That explains a lot. Well, I'm a member of the jury pool, which means that every so often I'm called to decide which lawyer has his head further up his wazoo. Lucky for me I'm not from Indiana so won't have to be on the jury when this preacher gets tarred and feathered.

This is a sad time, a very sad time and (on the basis of my understanding of human nature, natural law and world history) unless the natural rights of such families are protected in a proactive manner I'm predicting sooner or later there will be violent retaliation. History has too many similar occurrences for it to not happen. America doesn't need a second civil war just to protect somebody's privilage to show their behind in public.
 
Sorry that this happened in Indiana...

I see that Rev. Fred Phelps of the Topeka, Kansas Westboro Baptist Church and his minions are at it again.
Click to expand...

I am from Kansas, and I am thoroughly ashamed that we let these people out of their cages.

A couple of days ago we had another funeral here where they showed up. Then comes these motorcylcle riders from all over who are mostly veterans. They bring large flags, park right in front of protesters, and rev the motorcycle engines when ever they try to chant their ignorant redderick. From the funeral home the family can't see them through the flags, or hear them over the motorcycles.

The family was greatful for the veterans who showed up, and they have vowed to follow this group of radical nutballs, anywhere they go to provide the barrier to any other family that request them.
 
"Then comes these motorcylcle riders from all over who are mostly veterans".
Click to expand...

Bravo,

I have long wondered about that. I know exactly what you mean – and no doubt, they want to be regarded as veterans – but how many and what percentage actually served with honor, I have never seen documented or definitively established.
 
Rob P---If that's the case, then I can personally refute your claims as I have met and know some highly intellegent and highly educated, pro-gun and devout democrats.



1. If you read my post, I said MOST---not ALL
2. You are talking about the exception not the rule per Liberal Democrats
3. You can call yourself a Republican(or anything else) if you like, but action speak louder then words. I can go around saying I'm a Christian, but unless I'm living the lifestyle or leading by example--then I'm a Christian in name only
4. As much as they like to deny it, the Liberal Democrats are indeed made up of the anti gun, anti religion, and lower educated. Those are the facts. The exit polls from the last election also show that the gays, black(89%), lower income, young 18-29(immature), non military, single etc...overwhelmingly voted Democrat! Like it or not, that IS the makeup of the Democratic party----oh and don't forget the ACLU!:barf:
 
Bravo,

I have long wondered about that. I know exactly what you mean – and no doubt, they want to be regarded as veterans – but how many and what percentage actually served with honor, I have never seen documented or definitively established.
Click to expand...

Can't tell you about that. I don't know. What I do know is that if these people are willing to peacefully place themselves up as a barrier, so that the grieving family doesn't have to put with these idiots, they have enough honor to deserve my respect.
 
A an attorney who abides by the law, and that same law has always held that speech may be regulated to Time/Manner/Place, how then can you say it is wrong to hold these particular protestors to that standard?
Click to expand...

There is a need to limit the length of some public commentary (like parades, marches, gatherings etc) because some types of protests take large amounts of time and room which, after a while, disrupts the public harmony. This is why permits are required for some events. However, a public soapbox which does not disrupt the general public needs no permit. It is why you can say things like "screw all lawyers" on the street without needing a permit.

Had there been a need for a permit for the event in question, I'm positive that a permit would have been issued and the protestors would have been sanctioned as to their choice of time & location. However, there CANNOT EVER be a requirement of a permit based either solely or even partly upon the content of the speech. Even hate speech will be granted a permit and the permit will be based upon stds of time, space, and location. Content will not be considered or even mentioned.

But that's not what is being said about all this.

In simplistic terms what is being advocated here is that the protestors are saying stuff some don't like and they shouldn't be allowed to say that stuff during a funeral. It'd be OK if they said that stuff when no one was around or if they said it somewhere where no one could hear them - but not at a funeral. The unspoken addendum is that all the rest of the stuff which isn't objected to is OK to say any time any place. For instance, a veterans memorial gathering at the funeral would be OK. But not a war protest.

That's an impermissible imposition on the opportunity of the protestors to fully speak their minds and be heard. And it is a limit based upon content of the proposed speech. It's the "we don't like what you're saying so you can't say it here/now/etc" requirement.

The underlying issue in THIS particular application would be to ask the following: Is there another time or place where the event could happen - which will allow the opinions given - AND which lets the views expressed be heard by those whom it was directed at?

Not in this instance. Changing the location removes the intended audience. Changing the time also removes the intended audience. Thus, any limit in this case to some other place or time prevents the public speech from being heard by those it was intended to be heard by. As such, those limits effectively blocks the speech from reaching those toward whom it was directed. It is the same as if you forced the protestors to be silent or stay away entirely - no one would hear them. Solely because some few judge that the content is morally objectionable.

I will let the rest of the personal stuff pass without comment as it is not germane to this debate and is an attempt to sidetrack the issue.
 
Rob P--The underlying issue in THIS particular application would be to ask the following: Is there another time or place where the event could happen - which will allow the opinions given - AND which lets the views expressed be heard by those whom it was directed at?


Yes, in front of a government building where there are politicians! You are making 0 sense. What possible result would come from protesting at a dead man's funeral? Exactly how did he make the decision to go to war?! Exactly who are they directing it at, and what do they think the result would be----to have their message be totally disregarded because of the time and place!:barf:

Rob P---I will let the rest of the personal stuff pass without comment as it is not germane to this debate and is an attempt to sidetrack the issue

Translation---I can't refute the facts you presented to me. BTW, it can't be a personal attack(giving the stats) unless you happen to fall into 1 of those categories, since it was directed at a Political Party that you claim not to be a part of.:rolleyes: ;)
 
Last edited:
Yes, in front of a government building where there are politicians! You are making 0 sense. What possible result would come from protesting at a dead man's funeral? Exactly how did he make the decision to go to war?! Exactly who are they directing it at, and what do they think the result would be----to have their message be totally disregarded because of the time and place!
Click to expand...

Freedom to protest is not limited to ONLY gov't buildings where there are politicians. People have the freedom to protest in front of Walmart, GM, Sears, Congress, Aunt Martha's Vineyard and Public Park, and ANYPLACE ELSE in this country that is public property. The rest of your post is nonsensical since the motivation behind the protests isn't relevant to the bestowing of the RIGHT to protest. Please stick to the factual issue and stop trying to cloud the discussion with emotional outbursts.

Translation---I can't refute the facts you presented to me. BTW, it can't be a personal attack(giving the stats) unless you happen to fall into 1 of those categories, since it was directed at a Political Party that you claim not to be a part of.
Click to expand...

WRONG! Should you choose to continue in this vein, I WILL report you to a moderator who probably will close this thread. This is a personal attack with no basis in fact that you continue to press in an effort to assassinate my character which you know nothing about. THIS TYPE OF THING IS WRONG TO DO! And you know it. I request you stop.
 
That's an impermissible imposition on the opportunity of the protestors to fully speak their minds and be heard. And it is a limit based upon content of the proposed speech. It's the "we don't like what you're saying so you can't say it here/now/etc" requirement.

The underlying issue in THIS particular application would be to ask the following: Is there another time or place where the event could happen - which will allow the opinions given - AND which lets the views expressed be heard by those whom it was directed at?
Click to expand...

You tell me how disturbing a ceremony to lay a fallen hero to a final resting place will have any impact on stopping the war then we can talk. Until then this is just complete hogwash! You want to stop the war? Great I am all for it! I'll be the first in line. At a place that is appropiate. Say like the white house, a congressmans office, the senate. But even though I disagree with war, to disturb these people at this time is criminal behaviour.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/13093466.htm


/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top