Congress passes funeral protest ban

An intriguing and thought-provoking point of view, as always. I'll try to respond in kind.

I disagree that freedom of speech implies freedom to choose whether to listen in all circumstances. Freedom of speech in American context simply means that Congress is expressly forbidden from making laws regarding your right to speak. Now, on your private property, you absolutely have the freedom to listen or not. You're not Congress, you have no responsibility to preserve anyone's right to speak. If you don't wish to hear them, ask them to be quiet, throw them out, whatever you want to do -- it's your place.

On public property, though, there is no such right. In public, for better or for worse, we have to accept what others do as long as it doesn't violate our own rights. And, there is no right to never be offended. In practice, the First Amendment only protects offensive speech -- if I stood in public with a sign that said, "Kittens are Cute and Furry", nobody would care if I did it or not.

Of course, that doesn't stop us trying create the right to not be offended for ourselves. Legal restrictions on, for example, public drunkenness, which parts of the body must be covered in public, use of 'bad' words on television/radio, etc. are quite proliferate, and all created because someone was offended, even though none of those things are directly harmful to anyone. Some of these laws are problematic with regard to the First Amendment, and all with regard to the Ninth. What has happened over time is that a majority of the people wanted these laws, so they were upheld, so now legal precedent has been built such that the ninth amendment no longer carries any force, and all of our freedoms have been further eroded. This kind of thing is what the Founding Fathers meant by the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority", and it is what is happening in this case, too.

Now, don't misunderstand me, I agree with all of your sentiments regarding Fred Phelps protesting funerals, I just feel very strongly that the government has no business being involved. Also, banning Phelps plays right into his hand -- it opens the door for him to challenge the law on First Amendment grounds. He craves attention, and this just gives him more.

His crew came here last year to protest because we elected a gay man to public office. He announced six months in advance when he would be coming, so the city commissioned big signs at the city limits which read "Welcome to our Hate-Free City". When they came, there were no confrontations or anything, they were ignored completely, and ended up getting bored and leaving before they had planned to. It was exactly the right response to their asshattery, and it made me proud to live here.

 

While I agree, public officials have a responsibility to listen, private citizens do not. Forcing people to hear religious beliefs while captive at an irreplaceable event in their lives is similar to forcing someone to read a bible against their will...how does that sit with you?

A person can choose whether to show up at a park for a day of frizbee throwing and a person can choose to leave and go to another park if they don't like what they're hearing at the first. The choice is there.

Now what if you're a black man at your father's funeral and someone forces you to listen to their hatred of your race, and belittlement of you and your father because of your skin color? You are captive, your chance for healing and showing respect for your father at his one funeral is tarnished forever and you will always be emotionally scarred by this event. You cannot take your dead body and go to another cemetary. You are captive.

...also, freedom of speech has always been limited. When it does harm to others, or when it threatens to tear this nation apart that is where the line was intended to be drawn.

I love you, Symen, for pushing me to think more deeply. <3

 

I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to reply sooner -- I've been sort of busy the last couple of days.

Public officials don't really have a responsiblity to listen, either, though they might run the risk of being voted out of office if they don't.

Forcing someone to read the Bible against their will doesn't sit well with me -- forcing anyone to do anything against their will doesn't sit well with me, unless their will is to cause direct harm to another.

I want to compare it a bit differently -- my grandmother was a deeply religious woman, and when she died several years ago, there were (quite appropriately) Bible readings at her funeral service. Now, I'm not very religious at all, but there was no First Amendment violation -- I wasn't being forced to listen in a legal sense.

You're captive in a personal/social sense, but not a legal one -- there's nobody from the government with a gun to your head forcing you to go to your father's funeral. Because of this, I don't think a legal solution is appropriate. I think a better solution might be for the owner of the graveyard to disallow Fred Phelps and other disruptive influences entry to the funeral (I think they're usually owned by churches, which are private property, so there is no legal obligation on their part to let him in to protest. In fact, the same First Amendment would make any such obligation equally as unconstitutional as the ban that is the subject of our discussion).

I think our views only differ with regard to the legal perspective in this case.

Speech is certainly limited in a sense where it causes indirect harm to others (by definition, speech can't cause direct, physical harm to anyone). For example, it is generally illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre -- if you do it, though, you probably won't be held responsible for the actual act of yelling "Fire", but for any injuries caused to anyone as the crowd exits the theatre.

Speech that threatens to tear the nation apart is the highest form of protected speech, though. It is the kind of speech that the First Amendment was intended to protect.

Likewise, and for the same reasons. You have very unique and thought-provoking views, and you inspire me to think critically about my own views and gain deeper understanding of different views. That's priceless to me.

 

I don't see how they could do their jobs properly without listening to and knowing the people they're supposed to be speaking for.

...or harm to themselves. Agreed.

You know your own grandmother enough to forsee that she would choose to have bible readings and in your respect and support of her, you chose to attend the funeral and be exposed to them. How about if someone showed up and decided to sacrifice live animals in the name of Satan at your grandmother's funeral against her wishes and against the wishes of the family? Would you walk out on your grandmother? Her funeral is now a scar.

I think the new law only prevents phelps from protesting during funerals on public property, yes? Aren't many soldiers buried in public cemetaries? and private land is often next to public land. So private land is still private. I could be wrong on that one.

...and I still say you are captive because a funeral is a once in a lifetime event. To not show is to disrespect the loved one you just lost.

Yes, and from KO's thread the sign falsely advertising a future correctional facility in a residential area does harm by creating undue panic which could cause people to sell their homes and could potentially lower property value. Yelling something that is false simply for a reaction is not the free speech I imagined we should be protecting.

I disagree. The first amendment was meant to protect this nation from tyranny. Free speech is a crucial ingredient to that mix. People are sometimes irresponsible and hateful with this freedom. Just like salt is good and necessary in your diet, consuming salt with no restraint can kill you. If the nation is torn apart, there is no free speech because there is no law to protect it and people fear what is different from themselves enough to use force to shut it up and or kill it. Tyranny

 

I only have to respect that people are allowed to speak freely and have their own opinions. I, in no way, have to respect what they say.