Bill to ban protests at funerals passes Congress

[swingset]

I hate the Amish for using our roads and not paying gas taxes that pay for them, therefore I find them unworthy of freedom.

The Amish pay taxes.

The only thing they are exempted from is paying social security tax, but they also receive none. They're waiving it, and only the unemployed Amish get this exemption.

They pay no fees or registration on a horse-drawn vehicle, but then neither do you if you buy one and go to work clumping along the highway. Bicycles don't pay gas tax either. I would guess this has to do with the fact that neither horse nor bicycles run on gas.

The same portion of Amish taxes that does pay for infrastructure is the same as yours. They also make signifigantly less impact on the roads and use them less than most, if you want to talk "put in/take out" on the social scale of justice.

The more you know.

I hate you for riding a more fuel efficient vehicle than I have, because you pay less gas tax on the same roads that I do. See how silly it sounds?

Edited August 3, 2012 by swingset

[magley64]

Amish do NOT pay property tax, every one of their homes is also considered a church...

That's not the issue, it's you swingset, and people like you who have the audacity to call yourself a libertarian while you wipe your ass with the bill of rights...

And not even for a good reason, just because it's pc not to say anything bad about a member or former member of any armed forces, all other attributes they might have had be damned...

look! a picture of swingset

You want a private funeral, host it on private property... simple.... trespassers who are there uninvited can be escorted out.

Edited August 3, 2012 by magley64

[Disclaimer]

I don't believe in legislating morality, or stifling freedom.

But that's exactly what you're being an advocate of in this thread. Legislating morality and stifling freedom because you don't like what others' have to say.

Reconcile that one?

[Scruit]

We have freedom of speech... Why not the freedom to not listen?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[magley64]

HR347 is pair of a minor language updates to an existing law that predates Obama.

I don't care who wrote it, and implemented it, I don't like it... that's less freedom...

[swingset]

But that's exactly what you're being an advocate of in this thread. Legislating morality and stifling freedom because you don't like what others' have to say.

Reconcile that one?

I explained it, but you chose to ignore everything I said except the quote you could make your point with. I'm fine with what people have to say. I support Westboro's freedom to picket and call soldiers names, tell us that God hates fags all day long....just not at a funeral. I support the KKK's freedom of speech, of NAMBLA's, even Magleys freedom to be a retard. Just not for any of those folks to go to a funeral and fuck with the grieving. It's this weird compassion and empathy thing, somehow it's more important than your rights to protest anywhere, no matter the consequences.

If I erect a billboard of scat porn and put it within view of your child's bedroom window, is that my freedom of speech being exercised or your freedom being impaired? In your view, it's the former apparently. But, in truth it's both.

You may not like my viewpoint that funerals are private affairs that a humane society will not impede with offensive protests, or support those that do, but I see the freedom to lay one's relatives in peace and with dignity being trampled.

You see the Westboro folks freedom being stopped.

For such an intellectual heavyweight, I'd be ashamed if you couldn't wrap your head around what I'm saying...even if you disagree with the difference.

I will never argue for a law where there's a choice in the matter. For instance I never support censorship where you can opt to change a channel, or shop somewhere else, etc. But, this is something very different. This is you targeting a funeral and harassing the grieving. If it takes a law to stop such ugly behavior, great....the funeral goers don't get to flip the channel and you're not being denied any meaningful freedom by being told to protest elsewhere. If a societies bedrock of freedom rests on the ability to show up and insult dead soldiers while their parents bury their son or daughter, then I'm not sure we need more freedom frankly. Is that what those same soldier's fought for? Wouldn't that be a sick irony.

Sorry, disagree if you like but don't be obtuse and tell me that I'm supporting the legislating of morality or censorship. No one is being muzzled, they're just being directed away from a funeral. This isn't a slippery slope, no one's opinion or voice is being suppressed. No signs or slogans banned. It's just demanding that people can bury their loved ones without being fucked with.

I'd rather live in THAT society than the fucked up one you want.

Think about this. When we were a younger nation, and our freedoms much less restricted by laws and copious restrictions, this kind of act would have never been tolerated. It was a law that never entered anyone's mind to invent, because no one in their right mind would have committed it, let alone supported it.

Edited August 3, 2012 by swingset

[Pokey]

There are a few on here that I would love to see how they would feel/react, should somebody they love being put to rest has protesters being belligerent assholes outside at the funeral. I am betting you would be irate and devastated, also betting you would feel awfully resentful about their freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has to have "moral" limits put on it, should be no different than other laws we must abide by "that have limitations". Public displays of hate and or intolerance shouldnt be allowed in my opinion, do that shit in private on private property. Some public displays does nothing but add fuel to the fire, and along comes the media scumbags to make things even worse. We have the freedom to assemble, just do it somewhere other than downtown and in the BIG CITY. Hell lets just do away with all laws, we shall decide for ourselves "since we know best", and lets just let the chips fall where they may.

[Steve Butters]

it should at least be considered disturbing the peace.....its no different than standing outside an elementary school yelling curse words or toting around picket signs with porno pictures on them....your freedom of speech shouldnt hinder someone elses freedoms

i dont think we need "more laws" but i think stuff like this should already be against the law....theres just certain things you cannot say in certain places out of decency, and this should be one of those times

Edited August 3, 2012 by Steve Butters

[drc32-0]

Just wondering...how many people posting on this thread served in the military?

[Disclaimer]

I still think it's funny some people in this thread want to legislate morality, ethics, and decency. You want that 'scat porn' billboard up on your private property then I always have the option of moving, right? Or, lets get the gov't to step in and ban scat. No negatives can come from banning scat billboards, right? Don't like the way someone smells? Then we can have the gov't mandate the amount of times people shower so as not to offend my olefactory senses. "I'm not making you shower, I'm just asking the gov't to make you shower when you're around ME between the hours of 8AM and 5PM"

This has much less to do with being an intellectual heavyweight as it does debating the subjectivity of ethics and morals and contrasting them with an equitable compromise within our society that doesn't turn one section of the populace into uptight hypocrites.

It's going to be a very tough road to plow if you want to start adding more subjectivity to the legal system.

[Steve Butters]

Yet another example of our complacency giving way to government protectionism. If we were doing our jobs as citizens this wouldn't be an issue. It would have happened once' date=' maybe twice..and that would have been the end of it. Do I have the right to spend the night in jail for putting a hate-filled fundie in his place? Yes, but I'd rather just let the government handle it...because I don't have the time to be bothered with some dead soldier's funeral service.[/quote']

a night in jail would be worth the beat down of one of these guys....unfortunately, they are damn lawyers too and they will get you locked up for a long time, and then sue you for everything you own.....pussified society is to blame for it....i completely agree with you though....sadly we have to ask the government to do it because if we do it ourself, our life will be ruined afterwards or at least severly messed up.....almost impossible to get a job with a violent felony on your record

[Pokey]

In my feeble mind, it all boils down to people generally can't handle the responsibility of freedom......especially in this country.

[C-bus]

I just googled scat porn? WTF?

I want it banned and those people arrested.

As for the OP, at the end of the day.... any restrictions on speech are a bad thing.... not for what it restricts today, but what it can lead to. US military today.... what about an unpopular commander in chief years down the road? Will we go to jail for "It was Bush's fault" signs at his funeral? What about the grand dragon's funeral? Sharpton? I'm very, very skeptical of any attempts to restrict speech.

Now, to combat these pieces of shit, organize the citizenry. The Bill of Rights only protects speech from government interference. Organize people to disrupt their speech. Stand in front of them, make bigger signs, do stuff I can't put out on public forums... man-up America! You bunch of pussies!

[swingset]

I still think it's funny some people in this thread want to legislate morality, ethics, and decency.

You can speak to me directly. I'm right here. I think it's funny you dance around my argument and just make the same claims two times in a row, as if repeating yourself makes you more right.

I don't want to legislate morality, even if you insist I do. Ask me on any topic of morality and ethics, decency or so on and I will always side with "hands off" until your actions directly affect others. Then, when your need to project your bullshit harms others, if you're too stupid to live and let live, I'm fine with laws that protect the innocent from the harm of others. That is, rationally, the only reason for laws in the first place.

You want that 'scat porn' billboard up on your private property then I always have the option of moving, right?

Yes, but it doesn't change the nature of the offense, or the state of those harmed by your actions. If I yell "that guy's got a gun!" in a crowded theater (the litmus test of free speech), you're always free not to panic or get trampled by others right? Your freedom ends where mine begins. It's a simple concept. Dwell on it.

Or, lets get the gov't to step in and ban scat.

I wouldn't advocate that, or support it. You have the option of looking at it, or not, but not if your neighbor puts a sign in your children's view. This isn't hard, but you're trying to make it so.

No negatives can come from banning scat billboards, right? Don't like the way someone smells? Then we can have the gov't mandate the amount of times people shower so as not to offend my olefactory senses. "I'm not making you shower, I'm just asking the gov't to make you shower when you're around ME between the hours of 8AM and 5PM"

Histrionics. Straw men.

This has much less to do with being an intellectual heavyweight as it does debating the subjectivity of ethics and morals and contrasting them with an equitable compromise within our society that doesn't turn one section of the populace into uptight hypocrites.

Good, then let's start debating and talk less in amateurish run-arounds because you can't grasp the concept of your actions affecting others in a negative way, the limits of your freedom, while others conducting are private and solemn affair and are never an appropriate venue for a protest. It's a shame grown men need help in comprehending this. Maybe that's why we're having this conversation, because we've become a nation of people so callous that protesting funerals is considered a right.

It's going to be a very tough road to plow if you want to start adding more subjectivity to the legal system.

I don't. I simply support a single, focused, and unambiguous law that stops people like the Westboro douches. It's not far-reaching, it has no real ability to grow or be interpreted to mean other things. It's not a slippery slope it's very clear. It's a simple law, for a simple problem, and it makes sense in this limited area and does more good than harm.

As all laws should...otherwise I'm against them.

Edited August 3, 2012 by swingset

[20thGix]

They dont need laws in Texas to stop them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/texas-am-students_n_1653002.html

[Disclaimer]

I'd be happy to get off the scat porn, but you brought it up. I'm not here to judge what you're in or not. I'm a live and let live kinda guy.

But, I still don't understand YOUR argument, because YOU'RE personalizing it. I've never claimed it's a slippery slope argument (logical fallacy), it's not. I get it. It still doesn't make it an acceptable law. There's never been an argument from people on here about it being a douche-thing to do when Westboro does things like that -- mostly because people on here have some common sense of morality, ethics, and decency... but we aren't *everyone* and there are some things that keep a tyrannical government in check. It has really doesn't have anything to do with "protecting the innocent", but more to do with the legal right for the common man to protest what they feel are wrongs or injustices, including funerals.

Additionally, a funeral to YOU is a solemn, private affair. To someone else, it could be a celebration of a life, a time to party. Who are YOU to judge how a funeral should be conducted and what it should and should not be? You also make the presumption that just because someone is or was a federal employee in the military that they are of no sin and don't deserve the be picketed... If some ex-military guy raped your child, and you retaliated by murdering him before the trial, you think that guy deserves to be buried in a solemn private affair? A child rapist, just because he was former military? You wouldn't expect your wife or family to bring attention to your plight? I dont' think you'll be able to say, with an honest straight face, that you'd be ok with protecting the rights of the child rapists' family -- who may or may not be just as bad, ethically, as the rapist for supporting him.

Yea, that's a hypothetical, but I posted the link earlier that shows exactly why a group of people should have a legal right to picket at a military funeral. That's NOT hypothetical.

It's all a matter of perspective, and when your only perspective is from YOUR own, that's when we have issues. There are actions that "negatively affect" me everyday, but I'm sure the same can be said of me that affect others' if you'd ask them. Again, highly subjective.

[swingset]

It's all a matter of perspective.

That's the only thing we'll agree on since you feel a legitimate expression of free speech is protesting the grieving families of dead soldiers...and find no apparent violation of their privacy or rights to bury their loved ones in peace.

Nothing else I can say.

[Pokey]

They dont need laws in Texas to stop them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/texas-am-students_n_1653002.html

Now THAT is the America I like to see.....kudos to them all!

[magley64]

That's the only thing we'll agree on since you feel a legitimate expression of free speech is protesting the grieving families of dead soldiers...and find no apparent violation of their privacy or rights to bury their loved ones in peace.

Nothing else I can say.

Simple fucking problem to fix... private funeral on private property, no need to shit all over the constitution, just kick the picketers out...

[Scruit]

Simple request...

Go to a protested funeral. Then decide.

I rode with the Patriot Guard to Flushing MI and stood between the Wetboro Bastards Church and the family. I stared hatred in the eye expecting it to anger me, but all i felt was pity for the low-level WBC plebs who are utterly devoid of their own opinion and utterly brainwashed by Fred Felch.

I stood with old and young, military and non-military, locals and outsiders, family and strangers.

I took my place in line with my flag and my hand on a heavy heart as the family drove Joshua Youmans to his final peace.

When you see unadulterated hatred in a delusional stranger, and then witness the utter, utter despondent grief in a mother's eyes as she accompanies her child to his grave.... THEN you tell me what you think about protesting funerals.

I get the constitutional arguments, and I agree.

I get the privacy arguments, and i agree.

We NEED a middle ground. We need to provide those who are grieving the chance to do so in peace. We NEED to hold our constitution is the highest regard.

What is the answer? Neither extreme is. There has to be a compromise possible.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[magley64]

Patriot guard... the RIGHT way to do it...kudos to you sir.

[jbot]

Vigilante justice. It's the only answer.

A suitable loner would have to be chosen. He would be of the middle class, and medium smart. He would be athletic, sort of, and would throw elbows of justice. He would ride a discrete yet copper hayabusa, and build helicopters in his backyard.

We could call him.... Scatman

[smashweights]

The real question is why can't guys like James Holmes who just want to shoot people and then spend the rest of their lives in prison pick the scum of society instead of innocent theatre folk?

Yeah yeah, BLAH BLAH BLAH you want people dead mr. smashweights! how's that for morals blah blah blah.

I just want to see another Magley vs. OR thread hit 10+ pages of:

Edited August 4, 2012 by smashweights

[Bad324]

Vigilante justice. It's the only answer.

A suitable loner would have to be chosen. He would be of the middle class, and medium smart. He would be athletic, sort of, and would throw elbows of justice. He would ride a discrete yet copper hayabusa, and build helicopters in his backyard.

We could call him.... Scatman

And he already has a theme song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMWudFLsaY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[swingset]

Vigilante justice. It's the only answer.

A suitable loner would have to be chosen. He would be of the middle class, and medium smart. He would be athletic, sort of, and would throw elbows of justice. He would ride a discrete yet copper hayabusa, and build helicopters in his backyard.

We could call him.... Scatman

I'd buy your newsletter.

When scatman shits, he's just practicing for justice.