U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Anti-Gay Funeral Protesters

[Archaic]

Well you could have fooled me when you are perfectly happy to allow the family of a dead soldier to be ridiculed and tormented as they try to bury their dead child in peace and dignity.

Perhaps an absence of actual adversity in most of our lives makes the trivial seem of colossal importance.

I have to say I agree with Nats here. The dead soldier has made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. So have their family. They absolutely deserve to have a dignified funeral. Our society owes it them and to their families.

Think of the little children of a young soldier who are already traumatized that their Mommy or Daddy is dead...now they have to be emotionally abused and traumatized at their parent's funeral?? It's utterly shameful to do that to them.

The reason these people are protesting at soldiers' funerals is that they know it will cause maximum distress and thus give them maximum press coverage. They think that's the most efficient way to get their message across. It's a publicity stunt. If you watch a video of these people on Youtube you will see how demented and hateful they are. They evidently feel like "media celebrities" now, it's disgusting.

Would they be allowed to "protest" at the weddings of the children of U.S. Congressmen and disrupt the ceremonies? Or at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery? Surely not.

How about outside ex-President Bush's house, who got us into the war in the first place??

I think those people are demented hate-mongers who should be forced to keep their "protest" at such a distance that it cannot disrupt the funeral ceremonies.
It's the least we can do for our dead soldiers and their suffering families.

Best regards,
Archaic

[mariab]

What's Gilligan's Island?

I've never watched it, but it's an American comedy sitcom from the 1960s with a group of people stranded on an island, with the group of castaways consisting entirely of clichés (the Professor, the movie star, the married couple, etc.). I've once watched an early episode of Baywatch (from one of the early seasons, pre Pam An!) which was a parody of Gilligan's Island, with the cast from early Baywatch performing the parts from Gilligan's Island in some Baywatch character's dream. Now if that's not self-reflexive television.

Does anyone know if there was protesting at soldiers' funerals during the Vietnam war?

[c.d.]

CD, Natalie's rights to protest at her council's antics have no connection whatever with the judges' ruling on the Baptist case. There would only be a connection if Natalie chose to wait until one of the councillors died and then turned up at his funeral to hurl insults.

Sorry, Robert but you are absolutely wrong on that point. You are still seeing this case in a vacuum thinking that the Court's ruling applies only to the church members. This decision is case law. The principle is called [I]stare decisis[I]. The courts try to be uniform in their decisions so that they cover a broad range of cases. They have laid out principles of law in this case that other courts are required to follow. This case outlines the limits of free speech for all Americans not just those picketing at funerals. So yes, Natalie's right to protest on behalf of battered women is protected by this case.

I think that there is also some confusion as to the sexual preferences of the soldiers. It doesn't matter to the church whether the soldier is heterosexual or homosexual, they will picket in any case because they believe that the killing of American soldiers is God's punishment for America's embrace of homosexuality.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Natalie,

You didn't respond to my post. Do you want the right to speak out for battered women? How about the homeless or the elderly? How about insurance companies that deny coverage to people who have paid for health insurance but have now become seriously ill? If you or a loved one fell into that category, God forbid, would you want the right to protest? I think you can see where I am going with this. By the court permitting the church members to do what they do, they also protect your rights.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Archaic,

How would you feel if the church members carried signs that read "God bless you and your family." "Your son died a hero?"


c.d.

[caz]

If it starts to limit who has the right to free speech then your right to speak out for what you believe is in danger.

Once again, my issue is not with who has the right to say what about whom; I am in broad agreement that we should all be allowed to express our views freely (however extreme, insensitive or intolerant they may sound to someone else) without the law coming down on us for doing just that and no more.

But in certain very specific circumstances, where personal or public safety itself is likely to be directly threatened by someone speaking their mind, I don't see why exceptions can't be made. The most obvious outcome I could see, from someone shouting in a crowded theatre, for example: "I'm a very tolerant chap but..." and then going on to call homosexuality a "choice" or an "abomination" would be that person getting his teeth shoved so far down his throat he'd be talking to his arse as well as out of it. Now the law is there to deal with such an assault after the event, but the way to prevent it in the first place is pretty obvious. Treat others as you would be treated, and you get to keep your teeth.

Tolerance works both ways. I do find it arrogant when a poster talks about their own tolerance towards others who are just 'different' in some way, no worse, no better. Gays, blacks, women, foreigners, the disabled, redheads - have all had to be extremely tolerant in the past of their tormentors, generally loud "I'm all right Jack" types, airing their unpleasant views without a thought about the impact on those less able to stand up for themselves in whatever society they were 'blessed' to be a part of.

Throughout history the law has had to step in to curb the worst excesses, the worst consequences of nasty minds and nasty tongues, while attitudes change much more slowly. But they do change in general, and so they should. A hundred years ago, certain posters here would have said we have to keep allowing men to beat their wives or where will it end? Wives will get away with not having the dinner on the table sharpish when hubby gets in from work. The slippery slope.

My arse.

Sensible people can reason this one out, surely. Why can't the law do the same and catch up?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie,

You didn't respond to my post. Do you want the right to speak out for battered women? How about the homeless or the elderly? How about insurance companies that deny coverage to people who have paid for health insurance but have now become seriously ill? If you or a loved one fell into that category, God forbid, would you want the right to protest? I think you can see where I am going with this. By the court permitting the church members to do what they do, they also protect your rights.

c.d.

Sorry c.d. I missed your post -I answered one poster and then had to dash out.
I see the point you are making but suggest Archaic and Robert make equally valid points.Take Archaic"s about whether this group would in fact be allowed to protest with total parity at say the wedding or funeral of a US congressmen and disrupt such ceremonies by shouting abuse---do you think they would---hand on heart?
Would they ,to take another example, be allowed to brutalise the tomb of the unknown soldier in Arlington Cemetary or the grave of JF Kennedy ?

Finally, if people want to protest,they will,whatever the fallout,and whatever a court permits or does not in law permit ---just as we are seeing today throughout the Arab world where protesters are ready to die in order to achieve their freedom.
Best,
Norma

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Archaic,

How would you feel if the church members carried signs that read "God bless you and your family." "Your son died a hero?"


c.d.

Absolutely. I quoted it for good measure.

Ultimately, you either value individual sovereignty or you don't. It can't be denied on the basis of not liking something, while expected from someone else on the basis that you believe your views are inoffensive.

Using your example, CD, an atheist may take offence at the "God bless your son" comment. Is an atheist entitled to ban the views of the christian due to offence? Of course not: the point is that offence is arbitary and based on the views, attitude and even daily mood of the person 'offended', which in turn is based on personal background and personal experience, and to turn this into law would be catastrophic for freedom of expression.....oh wait, we've already done this here, so it looks like the US is on its own when it comes to preserving sometinig approaching freedom!

It's a strange thing that the US was mocked by Europeans in the 18th and 19th centuries and still is today in certain quarters - what's that saying about arrogance?

[Robert]

So, CD, you persist in believing that the court's decision has a bearing on rights of free speech in general? Then it follows that until the court made its decision, people did not know whether they had any rights of free speech. Professor Smith writing his book and Mrs Jones buying her sausages were waiting to see if they would be arrested for saying "A pound of sausages please" etc. Then they hear that the Baptists won't be prosecuted and breathe a sigh of relief. "Phew! I can write my book now."

Of course, the court's decision had no bearing whatsoever on Smith and Jones. The ones who were waiting to see if they would be included on the free speech list, were the Baptists. Equally, if the court had ruled against the Baptists, Smith and Jones wouldn't have given up book writing and sausage buying.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Good question Chris.
Fleetwood Mac,
The right of the family to bury their loved one in freedom and peace is surely every bit as important as the "freedom of speech" which was successful in denying the family their civic right ?

What right? You don't even have the right to a life. You have the opportunity to do certain things and there are risks associated with them. The enlightenment idea of rights is flawed - it was a human construct based on abstract notions intended to wrestle power from the establishment.

A right is something that can't be taken away from you.

And, no, someone shouting in the street must be acceptable in the interests of all of us expressing ourselves freely and without fear of being shut down by the authorities - soldiers today, dog lovers tomorrow, communists the day after, anyone making a joke about the government two days down the line.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;168155]

A healthy democracy defends other rights of its minorities than just "freedom of speech", such as the right to bury their dead in peace and dignity

[QUOTE]

Surely those people protesting are a minority? You can't pick and choose which minority you defend based on your view of what's acceptable! It's either all minorities or not at all.

What you're saying is, in effect, is that you don't give a **** about minorities who do what you don't like, but you will defend those minorities who do what you like, which in anyone's book, is tyranny!

[Robert]

Fleetwood Mac

I agree with you about rights - abstract monstrosities. But going back to the slippery slope argument : if the state locks up a murderer, electrocutes him and then buries him - where will it all end? We might all be electrocuted. In fact if the state locks someone up for just a week - where will it all end? In fact, why have a government?

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

Ok. Let's talk about the damage done to the families of these dead soldiers. And for the love of God please do not misinterpret what I say here. What those families had to go through was beyond horrible. Nothing can be worse than burying a child in and of itself. But to have to endure what the church members were saying is beyond all human decency. But the court had to get past this as hard is it is to do.

What harm exactly did these families suffer? Were they phyisically harmed? No. Did they suffer a loss of their property or any of their possessions? No. Well how did they suffer then? I think we all in agreement that they suffered emotional harm. Ok fine. Let's use that as the basis for deciding who has the right to free speech and how far they can take it. So now we have decided that the church can't do what it has been doing because it causes emotional stress. Pretty easy, huh. But what about the T Shirts that read "Muslims = Terrorists? I can't imagine that decent Muslims who are good citizens respecting all laws and who love God and their neighbors and are trying to bring up their kids to be good people are real happy when they see these T-Shirts. So have they suffered emotional harm? If that is our standard and we say yes we have to ban those T Shirts. No doubt about it. What about the people who hand out photos of President Obama portrayed as Hitler. Now I voted for Obama and I find that quite offensive. I suffer emotional harm when I see those so those are going to have to go too. I think you see where this is leading. Ok well maybe there are degrees of emotional stress and we will use that as our quideline as to who can say what. Maybe figure out some sort of mathematical formula for determining the level of stress that someone has suffered. Well that could be a little tricky. And how about if you are holding a sign protesting budget cuts for battered women's shelters. If those who did the budget cutting are offended by the sign do you lose your right to carry it? I am not trying to be facetious here. We do not live in a perfect world. There is a price to be paid for freedom of speech. The church group are American citizens and have the right to free speech. If that right infringes on another group the Court has to engage in a balancing act. Here, the Court believed that the best decision was to ensure the protection of freedom of speech for all Americans by ruling in favor of the church.

We have been at this here in America for over 200 years and this is the best we have come up with. If you have a better solution, we would love to hear it.

c.d.

[Chris]

I think we all in agreement that they suffered emotional harm. Ok fine. Let's use that as the basis for deciding who has the right to free speech and how far they can take it. So now we have decided that the church can't do what it has been doing because it causes emotional stress.

I think you've misunderstood what the judgment was about. It wasn't about banning these demonstrations. It was about whether the demonstrators should have immunity from being sued for damages by their victims.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood Mac

I agree with you about rights - abstract monstrosities. But going back to the slippery slope argument : if the state locks up a murderer, electrocutes him and then buries him - where will it all end? We might all be electrocuted. In fact if the state locks someone up for just a week - where will it all end? In fact, why have a government?

Ha! Are you serious, Robert?!

Sticks and stones?

The protection of property, including the body, has to be a cornerstone of a civilised society, otherwise you have no civilisation; only tribal warfare.

Pre-empting your response, speaking your mind is not a precursor to violence: it is merely an excuse.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not stating 'the truth', I appreciate it's only an idea, but it's an idea that has room for your idea; and in the interests of courtesy it's nice to be heard.