I'm really surprised how many people from all political backgrounds are so open to violating the right to speak and protest. Understandably, it's not that hard to do when it's a lunatic group like the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) were talking about. Yet as tempting as it is to violate their rights, we must resist that urge with the utmost diligence.
Thomas Paine, one of 'the founding fathers', has these wise words for us:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Since these protesters were on public property, it would be wrong and discriminatory to deny them the right to speak there, no matter how repulsive their message.
I think we give these loons too much attention; which unfortunately might be encouraging them, as well as giving them a "megaphone".
I'd like to see families mourn and hold their funerals in private without the presence of these protesters, but we cannot ever allow our emotions to justify arbitrarily violating the natural rights of others.
There ways to work around WBC, such as counter protesting. Funerals could be held on private property away from public areas where the private property owners could prevent them from protesting on private property. (I understand this may be difficult or impossible to accomplish.)
In a truly free society there would be little if any "public property" and thus little if any opportunities for the crazed protesters to take advantage of it.
In conclusion, though, the saddest part may be that this episode once again shows many Americans are still are not interested in even a resemblance of a free society. As with the Ground Zero Mosque debate, some want the government to outlaw offensive behavior instead of sticking to it's only beneficial and legitimate job of defending the equal, natural rights of the people.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 92
Was I not clear enough in my condemnation of the protesters offensive behavior?
Agreed.
There is a time and a place for free speech but not at a funeral.
Who gets to make the arbitrary decisions of when we can exercise our rights?
As soon as we decide there are times and places where free speech on "public property" is not acceptable, then we've really given up the right to speak altogether.
Like Larry M says below, if you are only free to do what is popular, you are not really free. This time it is the WBC that is unpopular, next time it might be you or me.
I pretty much are with everything you've said except that I think it is very wrong to use government coercion to enforce our moral standards. Unless they are actually violating our rights (which they didn't in this case), these protesters must be dealt with via voluntary means such as counter-protesting and ostracism.
Do not trust the government they will try and run your lives for you.
Thumbs up!
In judging what is right and wrong, the first step is to choose a standard. The standard I've chosen for my personal life is the Bible. I judge right and wrong by that standard.
You've obviously chosen a high standard.
Society has to choose a public standard. Certainly it can't be one religion or another. That's a personal choice for each individual.
So we chose to abide by the standard of the constitution. It was written in such a way that it puts controls on our lives as little as possible. Primarily giving regulations for contact between persons, and persons vrs the government. They didn't include soul integrity. They mainly don't want you interfering with anyone else's freedom, or them yours. It was a good choice.
Your standard of decency and integrity makes you hurt for that family. I think they know most of us are on their side because many did speak out.
Also, cemetaries can bury the body in the center of their grounds so they won't be disturbed by anything outside. Usually, the person in the right has all kinds of support and love given to them by other citizens. That's personal love and integrity in action ... I like that :) so citizens like you and Matthew make up for those who choose to be hateful. Freedom is always best.
Actually, that time has already come. There is one group of people, who are not allowed to protest on public property - or more precisely within so many yards (I think it's within a block or two) of the place they're protesting. It seems prolifers are the only exception to the free-speech/assembly rule, when they choose to protest abortion clinics.
Strange times we're in - when people cannot protest outside a public abortion clinic, but can disrupt a family mourning.
It sure says a lot about the mind of our new lawmakers - the Supreme Court.
Glome, not really. Cemetaries tend to be full in the middle, since that's where they started long ago. And plots are often family plots, where a designated section is sold to one particular family. My Dad will take the last spot set aside for his family - a place reserved before he was even born (and he's 80.) Generally speaking, people don't reserve spots in the center of the cemetary just in case a child's lifestyle might affect the wrath of other people. It's just not something people think about - even now.
Ha ha ha. Funny.
You're also right about the publicity encouraging them. It's such a tiny group of idiots making so much noise.
\
turn the protest into a party;
surround the hate groups with flowers, and love
Sing and dance and make a racket
They won't know what to make of it
They'll try to shout out "HATE!" --
drown out their silly songs with roaring anthems
to peace and fun ~
Don't get me started on birthdays -- that is a sore subject at the moment.
We have laws in many areas regarding obtaining permits for protests, marches, demonstrations, and large gatherings. I would hate to see these become more restrictive because we are forced to extend the "free speech" definition to include hate speech.
You can't have free speech if some ("hate") speech isn't allowed.
I would also suggest that demanding decency is also a free speech "right".
You are welcome to disagree, but I think a group that aims what it says at demeaning and / or destroying (and this group is constantly talking about damning) can reasonably be assumed outside the confines of decency and order.
Most importantly, WHO defines "hate speech?" The radical right? The radical left? The government? Who? With the 1st amendment, NOBODY needs to define hate speech as ALL speech is protected.
That does not mean there should not be limits. Just that the limits must be applied EQUALLY to ALL speech.
That said, it absolutely disgusts me what these babies are doing. Don't they have even a modicum of respect??? Intelligent and respectful people do NOT deliberately inflict harm on other people. It seems that anymore there are more and more people deliberately inflicting harm on others, some by the spoken word. Shameful.
There is nothing, in itself, wrong with "radical" -- that is important to remember. And protest, in itself, is not wrong.
I listened to a number of commentators picking up the SCOTUS line that this is about "issues" and therefore protected speech. I recognize this group is presenting their message on issues ... I still fail to see how free speech must allow it the targeted venue of a funeral (private family grief) where there is no relationship between the death and the issue being protested.
Briefly, it is because free speech includes all speech.
Hmm. I'm not quite sure what you are referring to exactly? Cases where the government decides to violate our rights even though we are doing nothing immoral? If so, I agree, that's rather confusing and sad.
Thanks
To think these sick b*stards were going to protest the funeral of the 9year old girl killed in Arizona and they call themselves CHRISTIANS . There has to be a special place in hell for them .
I served my country to defend their freedom of expression and they would picket my funeral is ... I better before I say something to get banned, needless to say I'm pissed.
Excellent point. And as we are vacillating from one extreme to the other, our children are watching. tame
PS Thank you for making me feel welcome! It makes me feel so good, Matthew!
Only by every decent person banding together and protecting our right to bury our loved ones with the decency and respect they deserve we be able to stop them.
I think someone mentioned that when the WBC tried to protest the funeral of the little girl in Arizona, a bunch of people made angel wings and lined the funeral route, which would draw attention away from WBC. This could be the symbol to oppose them, make it a standard at every funeral.
They don't need to sue Dog! They already have the right!....The first Amendment, they have the same rights as all of us.
Free speech, by definition, includes all speech.
That would be silly and the proponents thereof would also be silly. For some reason I don't think the framers of the Constitution were silly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
I agree, that was just despicable and of course not supported by any evidence.
I realize hate speech may be made illegal, but that would fly in the face of the first amendment, and I would strongly oppose any federal attempts to regulate speech. (I'm also opposed to state and local governments doing that).