Bill to ban protests at funerals passes Congress

[swingset]

QFT

Close your eyes and imagine protests at a soldier's funeral in.... let's say....

1943. Back when an ass-beating was socially acceptable.

Good point. You couldn't have found a court in this nation that would have convicted a guy for punching someone out for that then. Now? You couldn't find a court that wouldn't.

How far we've fallen, and what's worse is we all know it.

[jbot]

It already did. This is a rider on another bill that has been finely crafted to avoid the constitutional problems that SCOTUS highlighted with previous attempts.

So, what... did they make it a tax?

[magley64]

If you want a sane solution, protesting in view of families of dead soldiers should exclude you from any police protection, arrests for anyone assaulting you, or civil suits resulting from these actions. Let's see who wants to protest then.

oh good, so if you exercise your rights in a way that I disapprove of, can I douse you in gasoline and light you on fire? I mean, laws are stupid right?

[swingset]

oh good, so if you exercise your rights in a way that I disapprove of, can I douse you in gasoline and light you on fire? I mean, laws are stupid right?

No, if you protest a soldier's death with disgusting slogans while his family is as their lowest, they should be able to punch you in your smug little manpleaser, and society should applaud such actions.

You have the right to purposely offend and degrade the fallen to their families, and they should have the right to knock your weird ass out.

There's no other meaning to what I said, no other arena, no mention of rights and protests. If you show up to a dead soldier's funeral and make an ass of yourself, you deserve a beating.

Any "civilized society" would understand that.

Unfortunately, net-tards who haven't seen a working vagina since health class movies do not.

[Disclaimer]

How so? What possible negative social outcomes will result? What freedoms will be infringed if you're not able to protest at a dead soldier's funeral? You can still protest whatever action he was engaged in, can you not? Just not at his funeral. Seems completely fair and reasonable, frankly.

How could this harm freedom? It's too specific to snowball or "slippery slope", it's just about protesting military funerals.

The law is from an alien perspective stupid, on that I agree, but it's in response to a wrong so egregious and sickening that I can't imagine that a society would have tolerated it to begin with or have no recourse other than "Well, let them mock the dead people's family".

If you want a sane solution, protesting in view of families of dead soldiers should exclude you from any police protection, arrests for anyone assaulting you, or civil suits resulting from these actions. Let's see who wants to protest then.

No, if you protest a soldier's death with disgusting slogans while his family is as their lowest, they should be able to punch you in your smug little manpleaser, and society should applaud such actions.

You have the right to purposely offend and degrade the fallen to their families, and they should have the right to knock your weird ass out.

There's no other meaning to what I said, no other arena, no mention of rights and protests. If you show up to a dead soldier's funeral and make an ass of yourself, you deserve a beating.

Any "civilized society" would understand that.

Unfortunately, net-tards who haven't seen a working vagina since health class movies do not.

Good question -- what negative's could possibly happen? How about this?

http://www.popehat.com/2012/08/02/congress-delivers-blow-to-survivors-of-my-lai-massacre/

Keep f*(kin' that chicken.

[Steve Butters]

i think a better law would be to allow people at military funerals to beat the shit out of people who protest them.....bet that would make them think twice

[magley64]

How about we leave the first amendment alone? Come to think of it, the entire bill of rights... let's just go ahead and err on the side of freedom...

So their protests make you all emotional? We don't need laws to protect your weak emotions... sometimes people will say things that make you sad, get over it.. don't cry to the capitol that you want their right to speak removed... grow a pair of balls, call them all a bunch of worthless dickheads or ignore them... it's that simple...

Why do these churchy bastards do it? To get a rise out of you, and because god told them to...

[Steve Butters]

i just wanna punch some nutjobs.

[magley64]

Careful punching nutjobs, you're liable to find out you punched the wrong one and get shot...

[Steve Butters]

good point...ill throw elbows at them, theyre more effective than guns anyways, therefore i will surely win.

[swingset]

Good question -- what negative's could possibly happen? How about this?

http://www.popehat.com/2012/08/02/congress-delivers-blow-to-survivors-of-my-lai-massacre/

Keep f*(kin' that chicken.

That's not a negative. A funeral is not the place to protest. The dead are gone, you're attacking the innocent families instead of whatever societal or personal ill you perceive.

Your right to protest does not trump the right of the family to bury their loved ones with some dignity and in peace...even if you believe them to be bad people, or having done bad things. Maybe you don't believe that, but I want no part of a society that values the right of the agitator and those seeking to harm over the innocent. It was awful what happened at My Lai, but if there's a way to make it worse it's to take your pain and visit upon people who weren't there, who had no part in it, and try to injure them too.

Sorry, this is where "free speech" is being warped into a perversion. I'm even a libertarian about most things, but where you see a right being taken away, I see one being protected.

If we can't respect the innocent people who in a time of pain and loss are beseiged by insult and ridicule, yet will bend over backwards to speak for the right of those who insult them, we're truly lost.

[magley64]

Elbows aren't more effective than guns, if that's what you've gleaned from my posts, you're doing it wrong...

I'm confident enough in myself that I don't need a gun, clearly you are afraid of something, and that fear compells you to carry something that makes you feel powerful.

If it comes down to gun vs fist, I'm liable to lose, but I refuse to allow fear to dictate my life...

If it comes down to car vs motorcycle, again I'm liable to lose, I repeat, I refuse to allow fear to dictate my life...

You do what you want, I fully support your rights, even if I find them utterly rediculous.

[magley64]

Sorry, this is where "free speech" is being warped into a perversion. I'm even a libertarian about most things, but where you see a right being taken away, I see one being protected.

So rights are only rights when you agree with them? Pretty narrow minded if you ask me...even I'm not saying we should take your guns away, and guns kill people, what the fuck do words do? They make you sad? Aww poor baby....

If you want to do something about it go join the patriot guard riders... block the protestors by showing support if you wish, don't shred the bill of rights because someone is sad about what some assholes are saying...

Edited August 3, 2012 by magley64

[ReconRat]

oh good, so if you exercise your rights in a way that I disapprove of, can I douse you in gasoline and light you on fire? I mean, laws are stupid right?

no, some guy in Columbus tried that. He's still in jail.

Certain laws and/or rights trump others.

Choose wisely.

[Uncle Punk]

A funeral is not the place to protest.

Fill in the blank for the next place to ban free speech or make a law banning it. KKK rally, NAACP rally, Republican convention, Democrat convention, Gay pride parade, Christian candle light vigil, etc... All of these people are innocent in their minds as well. I reserve the right to protest any and all of them, with repercussions for my actions. Those repercussions shouldn't be at the hands of government. Much like free enterprise deciding the fate of business government shouldn't be picking winners and losers.

I want no part of a society that values the right of the agitator and those seeking to harm over the innocent.

I don't need "you" or the government to decide my values or who is innocent or guilty by moral standards. This is simplified but I see no need for additional laws.

will bend over backwards to speak for the right of those who insult them, we're truly lost.

People have died, served and sacrificed to protect their right. Just because it is an affront to my senses doesn’t mean I get to change the rules to fit my senses. In most cases this country is divided in half on issues, not allowing discourse shows you don't have a firm grasp on your reality or have the means to defend it.

[ReconRat]

Already happened prior:

A federal law was recently passed forbidding demonstrations/protests within a certain distance of the president/politician/political convention. Not sure of the details... It's vague and allows extended enforcement.

This is now a federal felony enforced by the Secret Service. (And perhaps Homeland Security.)

H.R. 347, which President Barack Obama quietly signed into law on March 8, 2012:

The new law amends the federal criminal code to expand an existing statute that criminalizes certain activity in and around areas that are restricted by the Secret Service. It defines “restricted buildings or grounds” as the White House or its grounds or the vice president’s official residence or its grounds; a building or grounds where the president or someone else protected by the Secret Service is or will be visiting; and a building or grounds at which a National Special Security Event is taking place.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/07/new-bill-restricts-speech-and-assembly-rights-peaceful-political-protest-at-risk-of-criminalization-111594

Edited August 3, 2012 by ReconRat

[Uncle Punk]

Already happened prior:

A federal law was recently passed forbidding demonstrations/protests within a certain distance of the president/politician/political convention. Not sure of the details... It's vague and allows extended enforcement.

This is now a federal felony enforced by the Secret Service. (And perhaps Homeland Security.)

Yes, I am aware of that law and thought it was a stupid fucking law as well.

More laws we don't need.

I think we should make a law that would forbid any business executive from making any anti gay statements. The gays are just innocent people trying to live their lives.

[Pokey]

Violence all around could solve allot of these issues, then I wonder how many would continue to be dickhead fucktards? We are probably looking at the most unmoral and most self righteous that people in this country have ever been, it is all about me.....me....me.....look at me.....me....me....listen to me....me.....me....watch me.....me....me....bunch of attention whores that totally abuse their freedom of SELF. Sickens me to even think that my son may be risking his life one day soon, just so that many may make an ass out of themselves at the expense of others. Many people in this country don't deserve the freedom they have.....but they very much deserve IMHO what bad may come their way. You mess with the bull and you get the horns, so folks that wanna play dangerous games might just wanna stay home. There is only a few things that brings millions of Americans together, and they are called world wars and terrorist attacks. Which I am betting that one or both will be happening again before I take a dirt nap. It is no wonder why so many countries hate us, that is until they need us. I have said it once and I shall say it again....this country is imploding. We are anything but United States, and divided we shall indeed fall.

[Uncle Punk]

Many people in this country don't deserve the freedom they have......

Trying to understand under what litmus test we should be subject to that deems us worthy? Your version might not be the same as mine.

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

[Vulcan_Rider]

As happy as I am to see this law pass so that the families of soldiers dont have to deal with this crap, I am also sad to see it pass because it is a violation of freedom of speech.

[Pokey]

Trying to understand under what litmus test we should be subject to that deems us worthy? Your version might not be the same as mine.

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

Many not being worthy seems pretty obvious to me, but the Amish very much so seem to respect and appreciate this country and the freedoms it offers. Now many others.....they simply abuse it for their own selfish means and agendas. Which many times those protests will and probably should produce a violent response from both the believers and the naysayers. The words peaceful and protest just don't mix well in many instances, somebody is always on the losing end.

[Pokey]

As happy as I am to see this law pass so that the families of soldiers dont have to deal with this crap, I am also sad to see it pass because it is a violation of freedom of speech.

Except the families and friends of soldiers don't have the freedom of whupping the ass of some who abuse their freedom of speech. Therefore nobody wins, and that is due to people being incapable of minding their own business.

[Vulcan_Rider]

Except the families and friends of soldiers don't have the freedom of whupping the ass of some who abuse their freedom of speech. Therefore nobody wins, and that is due to people being incapable of minding their own business.

I completely agree and as I said for the sake of the families I am happy this is happening.

I just hate seeing the constitution being set aside wether I agree with the reasoning or not.

[Scruit]

Already happened prior:

A federal law was recently passed forbidding demonstrations/protests within a certain distance of the president/politician/political convention. Not sure of the details... It's vague and allows extended enforcement.

This is now a federal felony enforced by the Secret Service. (And perhaps Homeland Security.)

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

- It changes the bar for "intent" from "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly", so they don't have to prove you knew the area was off limits

- Adds, as stated above, the White House and the Vice President's house to the list of restricted areas.

The law already existed.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp

[swingset]

Fill in the blank for the next place to ban free speech or make a law banning it. KKK rally, NAACP rally, Republican convention, Democrat convention, Gay pride parade, Christian candle light vigil, etc... All of these people are innocent in their minds as well. I reserve the right to protest any and all of them, with repercussions for my actions. Those repercussions shouldn't be at the hands of government. Much like free enterprise deciding the fate of business government shouldn't be picking winners and losers.

Well, this legislation is completely specific to funerals for military. So the slippery slope argument is meaningless.

I don't need "you" or the government to decide my values or who is innocent or guilty by moral standards. This is simplified but I see no need for additional laws.

I don't see the need either, in a decent society where the most basic of human respect for the grieving families of deceased soldiers is off limits. Unfortunately, we're not living there anymore. I care more about those hurting, than those doing the hurting. Where you fall seems pretty apparent. You're identifying with the aggressors.

People have died, served and sacrificed to protect their right. Just because it is an affront to my senses doesn’t mean I get to change the rules to fit my senses. In most cases this country is divided in half on issues, not allowing discourse shows you don't have a firm grasp on your reality or have the means to defend it.

Discourse I approve of. Free speech, protest, even insult or injury....but there's always been a limit to that speech from the outset of our nation. Just as you can't walk into my house and show my kids anti-abortion photos as it impedes on my rights of privacy, I believe that a funeral is just as private and just as worthy of protection.

I would fight to protect your free speech, but this isn't free speech as much as it's targeting and insulting the families of the deceased for something completely unrelated to the purpose of their private affair. It's disgusting, and for once a law (that's not open-ended, that's not open for abuse) pleases this libertarian. We've proved nothing else will stop it, certainly not when folks like you seem to think it's worthy of defense. There are a litany of worthless laws, I object to most of them. But, this one makes sense.

I don't believe in legislating morality, or stifling freedom. I'm not seeing this as a freedom. You haven't been denied anything, except the chance to ridicule the grieving as they lay their dead to rest. You can still protest, still address grievances, this law doesn't affect any of that. Again, you see it as an offense against freedom, and I see it as protection. If someone's right to call dead soldiers names has been stomped on, the freedom to bury your son or daughter without people ruining the affair has been recognized.

I don't know why you're so hostile about this issue, but it's a different viewpoint and mine is born of someone who's laid to rest friends and family in the armed services.

Edited August 3, 2012 by swingset