I am ashamed to be from Indiana

Status
Not open for further replies.
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


MoW---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!


Rob P----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


I NEVER said ONLY government buildings etc...you asked if there was another time or place---I gave you an answer but never said there only. Again for the slow learning----that was not the right person to protest---place to protest----time to protest---FOR THE ISSUE THEY WERE PROTESTING! There was no benefit at all to come from protesting a dead man, except to incite the people gathered.
Finally, please explain the personal attack in reference to the Liberal Democrats I labeled as morons. Unless this applies to you then don't take it as a personal attack---rather an attack on a group of individuals who affiliate with this party. If you are one of them, then it's not personal but rather condemnation of a whole group. I'm sure the MODS are watching this thread like all others but if you insist on crying then I'm telling mom you threatend me:rolleyes:
Since you enjoy saying stick to what is germane to the issue----you still haven't explained how protesting the war at a dead man's funeral is germane to being against the war? Being a lawyer, let me put it to you this way, you work for a law firm, they give you a case and tell you to defend a child rapist to the best of your ability(despite your desire not to)---then when you die I protest you at your funeral instead of the firm that forced you to take the case! This makes sense to you? or will you try and spin it into legalese!:barf:
 
Rob, in your post (#57), the person you quoted was myself.

I have twice now suggested that TMP restrictions should be placed upon these people the same as they are held to people demonstrating at abortion clinics.

You keep comming back with the same rhetoric, that they can't be restricted. Hogwash, sir. They can, for the same exact reasons the Courts have placed TMP restrictions upon abortion protestors.

Further you said: "However, there CANNOT EVER be a requirement of a permit based either solely or even partly upon the content of the speech."

Again, you are wrong. I refer you to the BCRA, which the Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional. And that, sir, was a direct curtailment of Content with regard to TMP. Regardless of what you or I think of this decision, it is now the Law of the Land.
Rob said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, the rest of my post dealt with possible criminal violations or civil torts that could be employed. It was hardly personal and was certainly germane.

As to accusations of MoW making personal attacks, I didn't see them. Please PM me with the pertinant data and we can discuss it there.
 
Antipitas:

Free speech can be limited. You said it, I agreed...to a point. However, in THIS case the limits being suggested go too far. What is suggested is that the protest be sent somewhere else or held at another time. In essence, "not here, not now." And this isn't because the use of the sidewalk was improper or would interfere with the GENERAL public. Instead, the denial of the protest at that time/place was because of the content of the protest may have been upsetting to those participating in the funeral.

Some SCOTUS cases on this issue: Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51; Niemotko v. Maryland 340 U.S. 268; Good News Club v. Milford Central School 53 U.S. 98; Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund 473 U.S. 788.

In Niemotko the court decided that the right to equal protection of the laws...has a firmer foundation than the whims or personal opinions of a governing body They also said that the contention that the park was designated as a sanctuary for peace & quiet [is] no justification when used by fraternal organizations was permitted.

The court made that decision because Neimotko applied for a permit to use a park for bible study. The permit was denied because the gov't didn't like the fact that there was going to be religious content in the activity they sought the permit for. Note that the permit was denied because of CONTENT and the court said this is impermissible.

This sort of throws a curve at the suggestion that the protest shouldn't have been allowed because there was a funeral going on or that it was outside a cemetary. The denial of the ability to protest at that time/place merely because it was supposed to be a place of peace is arbitrary and would be a "content based" denial. Ditto for the fact that it was a soldiers funeral. A limit because one doesn't like the anti-war nature of the speech during a soldiers funeral is content based and impermissible.

In Good News Club the court held that A state may be justified in reserving a forum for ...discussion of certain topics (as was held in Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va. 515 U.S. 819). The power to restrict speech, however, is not without limits. The restriction must not discriminate against speech based on viewpoint.

The restrictions being discussed here are that the anti-war protestors shouldn't have been allowed to protest during a funeral. It isn't the fact that they were protesting at that time/place that is the trouble. Rather, it's the fact that they were an ANTI-WAR protest which is the problem. Thus, the burr under the saddle is the content of the speech and not the time or place.

Under well established SCOTUS decisions, limits on content are not allowed. Had there been a limit against anti-war protesting, there must be a limit against ALL AND EVERY type of speech. From flowers & candles left at the gravesides; to wakes, processions, and memorials. You couldn't even have a funeral "service" since that would be speech and if one lets that happen, then one must allow all other types of speech to happen. ESPECIALLY counter-viewpoints.

As for the personal attacks thing: So long as we all stick to the rules of "discuss the issue and not the person" I have no problems. "Ridicule" is not "discussing the issue". Since you are aware of my discomfort with some of the adverse comments I believe were directed at me, I am confident that EVERYONE will abide by the rules.
 
Rob P. I respect your opinion but what you are arguing for is what I call dead right imo.

Like when a driver decides to turn in front of a big tractor trailer because he has the right of way. The tractor trailer runs over him and kills him. Just because we have the legal right to excercise something doesn not relieve us of a thing called common sense.
 
Rob P. I respect your opinion but what you are arguing for is what I call dead right imo.

Like when a driver decides to turn in front of a big tractor trailer because he has the right of way. The tractor trailer runs over him and kills him. Just because we have the legal right to excercise something doesn not relieve us of a thing called common sense.
Click to expand...

So, in the event that a lynch mob comes my way and my opinion is different than theirs I'm supposed to just join them instead of getting run over by them? Or just stand by while they lynch someone who isn't doing anything wrong?

Sorry, it's our duty to preserve the ideals and tenants of this nation. If that means that I have to stand up to the mob to do that I will. If it means that I go down under their stomping feet, so be it. At least I go to my grave knowing what I did was right and that I tried my best to stop them.

Hiding while they killed the Jews didn't protect very many from Hitler's ethnic madness. It didn't even protect those who weren't Jewish. WWII happened because too many decided that if they played ostrich they'd be safe. They were wrong.

Protection from the mob only happens when you draw the line and say "That is far enough" BEFORE they get rolling. Unfortunately, the mob would rather put a limit on the ability to voice that opinion.

As in this case.
 
These people were not demonstrating against the war per se. They were however demonstrating that the death of the soldier was his just reward.

As for the restrictions being discussed, if you can not distinguish my position from that of the others, then we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Rob..I always agree with you..about 100% of the time..but not on this one..

Although they have the right to demonstrate and have freedom of assembly and the right to speach and protest..

I think in all good sense they should not campaign against families of the dead..its wrong.

A dead soldiers family is not the goverment...to upset these people and to protest in their vicinity during a funeral is nothing more then gross sensationalism...

although I am 100% in favour of peace and an end to this unlawful war...

People who denigrate the dead in that manner soley to further thier own agenda..should be lined up against a wall and shot.

Abit rash? Maybe...but leave the protests for the scum in power...not the people...:barf:
 
I have twice now suggested that TMP restrictions should be placed upon these people the same as they are held to people demonstrating at abortion clinics.
Click to expand...
How about the restrictions placed on Klan rallies and other incitements to riot? I realize that ACLU lawyers have a long pattern of arguing against these on a nearly universal basis, but the rest of the known universe supports limitations on the privilage to 'yell fire in a crowded theater'.
 
Does any one

Here besides ROB the lawyer feel that in any way I was saying that these dunderheads that protested did NOT have the right to protest?

Does any one here feel that my complaining that they picked the wrong time and place for there protest is incorrect?

If you agree with me then I would suggest you ignore Ron P
He is the one tolling.
He is the one that has no patriotism.
What the protestors and you are lacking is the common decency that the most of us seem to have. That common decency is to let a family morn there loss and keep the protesting for another time and place.
There is no question that they have the legal right, but they are morally wrong to do what they did and if you feel the same way as they did you are the one wrong.
You sir are the one tolling not me.

I would suggest to the remainder of you to ignore this persons toiling, he is a lawyer and as we all know lawyers comments don’t count for anything other than the next dollar that comes into there pocket.
 
Show these anti-americans

You dont agree by IGNORING them.
Protest.

This might be in bad tast, it might make some people mad, it might be incorrect to do this here, but as RON said I have the legal right to protest so it dosent matter what or when.
 
Wow. I'm incredulous.
Sorry, I did not read the entire thread. It hurt to much.

I will say this. If these people had protested at my son's funeral, I would meet them at the next son's funeral. I would not be alone, they would be dispersed effectively, and we all would proudly cool our butts in jail for what we had done. When released we would make plans to do it again.

Equating this with a KKK rally at Rosa Park's funeral is right on the money. There are some actions that should not be done. There are some actions that demand the indignant outrage and righteous action from men. Hiding behind laws and free speech when a grieving mother and family are being violated instead of defending her right to have one hour at her son's graveside to mourn without this kind of misdirected protest is the height of cowardice.

I'm sorry for anyone here I have insulted by this statement, but there are some acts that are wrong, regardless of what ammendment protects them, or what law says it can be done.

Anti-gay church protests at soldiers’ funerals

Military funeral protests targeted

If a cause is just, protesters do not have to stir this kind of moral outrage to further their cause. The cause speaks for itself.

PETA does not throw red paint on Hells Angel's leather. There is a reason for that I suspect........
 
Last edited:
I am asking every one here to protest by IGNORING RON and his trolling
Click to expand...

You guys play nice, and learn to get along. Sorry, but personal attacks such as this only bring the level down, or get the thread closed.
 
Wow, there's an awful lot going on here, some related to the topic at hand, some not.

Anyway, even from a liberal perspective, funerals aren't the best place to get your message across. It may be legal given all the proper permits, permissions, etc. (sorry, I didn't read through every post yet), but somehow I just don't think it's exactly politically smart and is in rather poor taste.

MoW, maybe you could clarify something for me. You stated:

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!
Click to expand...

So, what exactly are you saying? It would seem that you don't like what you describe as Liberal Democrats because you believe them to be wrong. You believe that the Liberal Democrats, as you understand them, largely are composed of people below a certain educational level, homosexuals, African-Americans, the poor, the young, etc. Ergo, these peoples' views must be wrong, because they are Liberal Democrats.

So what exactly do you have against these groups of people? Taking your statistics at face value, there still is no valid argument presented by you against the "Liberal Democrats," other than you simply don't like these groups of people or believe that they should have a voice or be represented in mainstream American politics. Maybe you think their representation should be proportionate to their numbers, that they should "know their place," if you will ...
 
The news reports I find about protests at soldiers' funerals are all about the whack jobs from the Westboro Baptist Church. Maybe I'm missing something, but what does that have to do with "liberals"?
 
First off blame the idiots whose genetic material makes up the protesters. Then blame the cemeteries for allowing these protests on private property!
 
Bravo25 you should read more of Ron replies

He was the one to start calling names not me.
I will refuse to back down when some one calles me unpatrotic or a troller.
I am just using the same words that he did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top