Bush Bans Protests at Military Funerals

[cal04]

President Bush, marking Memorial Day with a speech paying tribute to fighting men and women lost in war, signed into law Monday a bill that keeps demonstrators from disrupting military funerals. In advance of his speech and a wreath-laying at America's most hallowed burial ground for military heroes, Bush signed the ''Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act.'' This was largely in response to the activities of a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming the deaths symbolized God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The new law bars protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a national cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery. This restriction applies an hour before until an hour after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison. Monday's observance at Arlington National Cemetery was not a funeral, so demonstrators were free to speak their minds at the site. And several did. Approximately 10 people from the Washington, D.C., chapter of FreeRepublic.com, a self-styled grass roots conservative group, held signs at the entrance of the cemetery supporting U.S. troops. A large sign held by several people said, ''God bless our troops, defenders of freedom, American heroes.''

They were faced off against a handful of anti-gay protesters who stood across a four-lane highway as people headed toward the national burial grounds. The FreeRepublic.com group was trying to counter demonstrations by the Kansas-based group, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps. He previously had organized protests against those who died of AIDS and gay murder victim Matthew Shepard. In an interview at the time the House passed the bill that Bush signed Monday, Phelps charged that Congress was ''blatantly violating'' his First Amendment rights.

He said that if became law, he would continue to demonstrate but would abide by the law's restrictions. Bush signed a second bill Monday that allows combat troops to deposit tax-free pay into individual retirement accounts. Supporters of the legislation argued that rules governing these accounts were punishing soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq who earn only tax-free combat pay.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Deja Q]

1. Is the photo of soldiers being taken out of a jet plane's cargohold a hoax

The one where the passengers were looking at the removal of one?

[soup]

58. no.

2nd Lieutenant James Cathey

Final Salute
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/news/finalSalute/

#18 in Times Photos of the Year 2005
http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/

[u2spirit]

2. This story puts Free Republic in a good light

What this story doesn't say is that 99 percent of freepers are just like Phelps.

[northzax]

30. seems to me...

they just basically pointed out that the Freepers are very close to being felons...

[LittleClarkie]

91. Phelps is even too low for them. I posted a link to his site once

over there, and was banned in 5 minutes. None of the responses were pro-Phelps. Even a freeper wouldn't stoop so low as to protest at a soldier's funeral.

[davsand]

3. I have to wonder if this ban will hold up in court.

Phred Phelps is a toad--no doubt about it. I understand fully why anybody looks at him (and his minions) with animosity.

Having said that, I also have to say that this act really DOES fly in the face of the First Amendment--in fact more than the "free speech" zones they have already been using for protesters of the current regime.

I keep coming back to that quote about the First AMendment that says something to the effect that "the speech most in need of protection is that which you disagree with the most passionately."

It pains me to have to say it, but I'm thinking Phred may ultimately prevail with this one.



Laura

[karlrschneider]

5. I have to confess to being terribly conflicted on this one too.

As much as I despise that Phelps bunch of inbred assholes, more limiting First Amendment rights makes me awfully nervous. But if there's a 'good' solution to the predicament, it escapes me.
:eyes:

[cap]

this could also ban anti-war protests at a soldier's funeral

regardless of whether the family supported the protest or not.

[daleo]

26. Good point. n/t

[Zhade]

44. Yes, and "protest" could be as simple as, say, an armband...

...emblazoned with the number of dead soldiers, and maybe Iraqis, killed to date.

That is now ILLEGAL, thanks to this bullshit.

[lostnfound]

103. That is clearly what this is all about, IMHO. nt

[librechik]

14. Why isn't Phelps in a "free speech zone?" Or are they?

if it works for us, why not those freaks? (BTW, free speech zones are bullshit)


The whole point to the 1st amendment is to protect speech we don't like. As ugly as the Phelps is, we have to protect him too. If we cherry pick what we approve of, we'll be just like them.

[Exiled in America]

21. There is an easy good solution.

It is the same solution that is always best when you encounter ugly free speech that you wish you didn't have to tolerate, but know you do if you actually believe in the principles of freedom as outlined in the first amendment:

You always, always, always fight bad free speech with more (good) free speech. You never, ever, fight bad free speech by trying to place more restrictions on speech. Freedom of speech is not a privilege granted to us by the constitution - it is a basic human right that the constitution happens to recognize. If it did not recognize this human right, it would be tyrannical.

Protecting this human right is paramount, and there are already far too many restrictions and assaults on this right by the state. The best solution to countering ugly free speech is to organize a counter movement.

This is exactly what we did when Fred Phelp came here to harass people trying to get into church. We organized, and turned out over 200 people as compared to his 10 protesters. We didn't fight or clash with his people, we simply formed a human chain all around the block of the church, held signs with countering, positive messages of anti-hatred, and turned our backs to the protesters. We made it so that church goers could walk to church on the inside of a human wall of compassion - we sang songs and completely pacified the Phelps group. They basically stood on the street corner and said very little. We won, they lost. The church goers said that it was one of the best and most meaningful experiences they'd had seeing so many people of all different faiths or no faith come together to say "no" to hatred.

It was a huge success and the human right to free speech and expression was never sacrificed in the process.

Fight bad free speech with more good free speech. Not with more restrictions on speech.

[Zhade]

45. YES!

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

Exactly right - I wish some DUers here would get that.

Very well-said!

[ScreamingWhisper]

99. ROFLMAO

"..Freedom of speech is not a privilege granted to us by the constitution - it is a basic human right that the constitution happens to recognize."
Yes...it is a privileged right granted to all US citizens, by OUR Constitution.
Until our Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted and formalized, the right to speak openly and freely of your opinion (good and bad) in public, in written form or eventually, on the internet, were not tolerated anywhere in the civilized world. The State controlled religion and it's own culture

I don't see this as an issue of impeding one group of rights for another, but an issue of allowing family's to have the respect and dignity to mourn a family member passed-on without the disruption of a protest nearby, that they may or maynot agree with.
Allow a grieving family their time mourn in peace.

Protesters can still protest, but at a reasonable distance from the grieving family.

[Jawja]

77. Me, too.

It's a First Amendment right, no matter how vile it may be, for these scumbuckets to protest. If * believes he has the authority to ban ONE type of free speech, he will later begin to ban other types of free speech.

Ban Phelps today; ban a group assembled for peace later. It's not his right to ban ANYONE'S right to assembly and free speech.

[genieroze]

95. I'm conflicted too. My gut instinct says good, but my love a free speech

makes me say no.

[hlthe2b]

6. Unfortunately, this will likely force the ACLU to enter in on their

court challenge--just what the RW drools over. The concept of being true to the constitution and fighting for the most despiccable of "free speech," less there be NO free speech, is a concept that will be lost on so many... And, the Freepers, O'Lielys, Insannity Hannities, of the world will have a field day.

[Zynx]

7. This is a pretty tame bill.

Consider that you aren't allowed to protest in the entrance to an abortion clinic either, for obvious reasons.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Those bans are routinely overturned when challenged.

For similar reasons: peaceful protest is constitutionally protected.

[Zhade]

46. See my example upthread.

The 'protest' could be quite tame, and not aimed at anyone at the funeral or the dead, and still be illegal now.

And if a dying soldier somehow wished for his funeral to include protesting the war, his/her wishes cannot now be honored.

[Bozita]

11. wouldn't be surprised to find Phelps gets a govt check (like Armstrong ...

... Williams)

IMHO, Phelps is nuts, but he fits in so nicely with Bush's efforts to restrict the 1st Amendment.

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. I thought the same thing

I have wondered if they hired Phelps to do this thing that anyone and everyone found reprehensible, and therefore they were (we were) willing to give up a bit of freedom to shut them up. I do not trust the current administration and wonder about the unforeseen consequences.

[KittyWampus]

36. IMO, First Amendment doesn't cover harrasment.

[Charlie Brown]

41. If military families see this as harassment, they should prosecute Phelps

We do not need a special law to bar Phelps when harassment is already a crime.

If this law was passed explicitly to silence one group of people, it's unconstitutional from the get-go.

[Zhade]

47. Shades of Schiavo.

NT!

[ScreamingWhisper]

100. They are not being silenced...they are being moved

away from the grieving famiy, by a confortable distance

[Tesha]

73. Peaceful protest *ISN'T* harrassment, even if you don't want it.

Peaceful protest *ISN'T* harrassment, even if you don't want
to be protested, or you think the occasion is too solemn, or
any other reason.

This law is blatantly unconstitutional.

Tesha

[Maat]

97. As a law school graduate ...

I wonder also how this is going to fly.

[TankLV]

4. Oh woop-tee- do - and fuck the gay people, right?

I could care less unless it's EQUALITY for ALL.

[jberryhill]

59. It DOES apply equally...

...to anything within 300 feet of a national cemetary.

Unless the feds have someone been given jurisdiction over every cemetary, those are the only ones the feds run and can regulate.

[yardwork]

92. I'm queer and I loathe Phelps and his message BUT

I disagree with restrictions on free speech. This is a violation of the First Amendment, and I agree with previous posters who see this as Bushco seizing the opportunity to further restrict our rights - everyone's rights.

There are ways to handle Phelps. Making laws that restrict free speech is not a good approach.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

8. Next: ''Respect for America's President Act" ?

Phelps is a jackass's jackass but he's not worth putting a crimp in the 1st Amendment.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Bad law tramples another piece of the Bill of Rights.

Sorry, but as obnoxious as Mr. Phelps and his spawn are, they have the right to peaceablly assemble with their vile messages of hate. The Bushistas don't want their hate message out there primarily because it directly reminds people just how vile and unchristian the War on Gays is, and how much it is an underlying theme of the theofascist wing of the republican party.

They don't want Phelps at military funerals while they are gearing upthe election year gay marriage ban offensive, it confuses their message.

[nsd]

22. You do realize that John Conyers supported this bill? He was ...

one of the House co-sponsors, as was Nancy Pelosi. A lot of Democrats, including progressive Democrats, think it's possible both to protect free speech and to honor our war dead.

[Charlie Brown]

25. Most of them also voted for the Patriot Act and the IWR

There are a lot of clueless, pandering Dems in Congress, and they're equally clueless on this issue.

Phelps is being banned because people disagree with his message, which is unconstitutional, and only two steps away from barring * protests and all anti-war demonstrations. Conyers and everyone else who voted for this is a hypocrite.

[nsd]

32. The bill passed the Senate without objection. Two weeks ...

earlier a nearly identical bill passed the House on a vote of 408 to 3. So you think that, not only John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi, but nearly every other Democrat in Congress is a hypocrite and panderer?

[Charlie Brown]

33. Yes I do

Conyers, Pelosi, etc. are always hailing free speech to promote their positions, now, along comes Phelps, and they decide to ban him because they disagree with his message. Some principles.

The fact that this law passed w/o any argument or objective analysis (like the Patriot Act) is probably the biggest reason to oppose it. Police powers are created from vague laws that only target a limited number of people at first, and this law fits that criteria to a t. This law, like all that curb free speech, will be abused, and Conyers, Pelosi, etc. are its parents.

Politicians supported this bill for the same reason they support flag-burning legislation and oppose gay marriage. They want to stay in office and will sell out anyone to do that.

[Zhade]

48. They are wrong to do so.

It's not like they, or anyone, is perfect.

[KingFlorez]

43. It's not about that

They shouldn't be allowed to harass people at these funerals with their stupidity, it's just wrong.

[Zhade]

50. Harrasment is already a crime.

We don't need further restrictions on free speech. When this group harasses people, USE THE EXISTING LAWS.

This isn't rocket science.

[KingFlorez]

52. They still should not be allowed to be at the funerals

This is not a restriction on free speech, it has nothing to do with that. It's about allowing people to bury their relatives without people screaming hateful things at them. Funerals are not the place for protest.

[Zhade]

56. Says YOU.

Thanks to this, even people in the grieving family could not protest the war itself.

[ScreamingWhisper]

101. ...and you would spend the time at your family-member's funeral

holding up a protest sign or chanting protest slogans, instead of observing what a funeral is supposed to be?! An observance of the person, and consolation for the family that remains? If this is true, then it's messed up on a number of levels.
1) What if the person who died believed in the war? Whatever your personal feeling on the issue, you are their to pay your final respects to that person and their remaining family.
2) A funeral is not about YOU. Its about the family grieving for a lost loved-one. Protestors have no connection to the deceased or family and were not invited to attend.

They can STILL protest, but at a reasonable distance from the grieving family

[Warren Stupidity]

61. All public spaces are proper places for protests.

I fail to find the exception in the 1st for funerals.

[KingFlorez]

63. It's wrong

I think there should be a line drawn, I don't think it's right to allow this to go on. One exception is not going to kill the First Amendment. Constitutional rights should not be abused.

[Zhade]

88. I don't give a FUCK if YOU don't like it,...

...you don't have the right to draw that line for others.

What part of the 1st Amendment don't you understand?

[KingFlorez]

93. Whatever

The 1st amendment does not mean you can go around and say whatever you like, you can't yell fire in a crowded room.

I do not support hateful people bothering grieving families.

[Zhade]

109. "I do not support hateful people bothering grieving families."

Neither do I, genius. But I also don't support the evisceration of the 1st Amendment the way you apparently do, red herring of "fire!" aside.

[Tesha]

74. Ahh -- *ANOTHER* DUer giving away our free speech rights.

I'm sure it warms the cockles of the Freepers' hearts.

Tesha

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Harass? Is a disagreeable message harassment?

There is a fundamental human rights issue here: free speech. If the phelp's are assaulting or harassing people that is already a crime. If on the other hand they are exercising their constitutional right to peacably assemble and protest, that should never be illegal. As always we get confused when we don't like the message or the messengers. Free speech means nothing if only proper messages are protected.

[KingFlorez]

62. It's an abuse of free speech

It's just not tolerable

[Warren Stupidity]

70. And once again

it is intolerable speech, especially intolerable political speech, that is exactly what is protected and must be protected by the 1st amendment. If you open the door to barring the intolerable message of the phelps clan, you open the door to banning other messages that the government finds intolerable. We already have the absurdity of 'free speech zones', we already have public demonstrations corralled within storm-trooper manned barricades, freedom of the press has become a farce due to media consolidation, and now, because we don't like their message, many of us are eager to sign up for some more trampling of our rights. It is almost always the case that our rights are taken away under the guise of a 'just cause'. We allow this nonsense at our peril.

[KingFlorez]

94. And one restriction doesn't take away the 1st amendment

[Tesha]

102. Okay, try this: Starting today, you, KingFlorez, have NO RIGHT to...

Okay, try this: Starting today, you, KingFlorez, have
NO RIGHT to express your opinion about President Bush.

How do you feel?

It's just "one restriction", it's small and carefully
constrained, and there are Republicans who are
offended by your speech against a valiant and loyal
American leader.

Tesha

[KingFlorez]

104. That's not the same

No one is stopping Phelps from saying what he wants, he just can come to funerals to bother grieving families.

[Tesha]

105. *IT'S PRECISELY THE SAME CONCEPT!*

There's a group out there that's saying something you
don't like while standing on public space and you want
to shut them up using an unconstitutional law.

I'm suggesting that you routinely say something that
someone else doesn't like, probably while you stand
on public space or use a public internet, etc.,
and they'd like to shut you up so let's hypothesize
a similarly-unconstitional law aimed at you.

Can't you see the similarities?

Tesha

[treestar]

12. So Bush can decree the First Amendment away

or so he thinks.

Anyone think this Phelps is a set up? Agent provocateur? Notice it just happens to be military funerals, the first line of sympathy for this sort of thing. If he were doing it at the funerals of gay men it would have more connection and the freepers wouldn't be so sympathetic.


:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Tesha]

98. It's okay; dozens (hundreds?) of DUers agree with Bush.

Who cares about free speech anyway, ehh?

Tesha

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. Not a decree--this is a law that almost every member of Congress supported

Even Dennis Kucinich supported it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll129.xml

It passed the Senate with one objection.

[rock]

13. What does he say is the justification?

He doesn't like it? National security? It upsets his mom? I'll bet it's a good reason, not.

[wicket]

15. Vile, offensive speech is still free speech...

...and is usually the speech in most need of protecting. I think Fred Phelps and his ilk are disgusting, craven assholes, but I'll die defending their right to free speech :grr:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

65. That's it in a nutshell...

Today someone bans ol' batshitcrazy Phelps speech and tomorrow some batshitcrazy RW Executive finds liberals speech offensive and decides to ban it.

Free speech for Fred is free speech for everyone.

I wanted to add, I was one of those who showed up to Randy Shilts' funeral when I heard Phelps was planning to protest. There were hundreds if not thousands of us there and ol' Fred and family lasted 10 minutes MAX before they ran like the cowards they are. Phelps had a constitutional right to protest -- and we had a constitutional right to tell him to piss of.

Free speech in action, folks.

[onehandle]

17. Free Republic, Hate Group. vs. God Hates Fags Phelps and klan.

Your classic family feud.

[DinahMoeHum]

18. Bear in mind this measure applies only to national cemeteries

and is basically symbolic. I doubt it has any real teeth.

Besides, I'd rather use the Patriot Guard Riders' approach to this issue. While they are NOT a protest group, they do shield mourners from the likes of Fred Phelps:

www.patriotguard.org

:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

19. It applies to free speech in public spaces.

As such it is in direct conflict with the 1st amendment.

[Lavender Brown]

38. Many states are passing these laws though...

One was just introduced in New York, by a Dem.

[Zhade]

51. That doesn't make those laws right, either.

NT!

[Lavender Brown]

54. I didn't say it did.

[Zhade]

55. I know. Just adding to your statement.

Wasn't attacking you.

[PSPS]

20. "Bush bans?"

More and more, we see headlines written deceptively this way, as if "The King Has Spoken."

This was a law passed by congress and then signed by bush. bush didn't "ban" it. He can't. But it's things like these headlines that show how far we've fallen into accepting the "unitary executive" theory. Many headlines are worded as if bush's fiat makes it so.

I wonder if there was a "signing statement" that accompanied this.

[Posteritatis]

29. Nice catch; didn't notice that for some reason. :P (n/t)

[Dangerously Amused]

23. But we can still celebrate at Bush's funeral, right?

Okay. Good.

[Posteritatis]

28. America's fallen zeroes are said to be exempt, yes. (n/t)

[daleo]

24. Phelps vs Free Republic

Life is funny sometimes.

[Posteritatis]

27. "Respect For America's Fallen Heroes Act?"

You guys really need to go the Canadian route and identify bills by letter and number or something.

Really, half of these things seem named so voting against them would cause a backlash, even if the content of the bill criminalized blinking and made Wicca the official state religion.

[bluestateguy]

31. This is a dangerous precedent

I prefer a compromise: let the Phelps people protest and let other people beat the living crap out of them while the cops take a smoking break.

[amandabeech]

34. My father was a WWII vet, and proud of his service.

We buried him a few years ago. The formalities included a military service at the graveside. You know the one: veterans or active duty fold the flag and give it to the widow. Someone (or some recording) plays taps. It is very, very moving--much more so than the funeral service itself. My mom and I were complete basket cases afterwords.

I cannot fathom what it would be like to hear any kind of demonstration directed at the burial of a loved one in that ultimate moment of grief.

I'm nearly an absolutist on First Amendment issues, but I believe that there are times when free speech must yield to other interests, particularly as to time and place restrictions. Here, I think that the human needs of grieving friends and family outweigh restrictions on time and place of the exercise of free speech.

[Charlie Brown]

40. It's not a question of your opinion

It's a question of the Constitution and legally protected speech. It does not matter how reviling or rude the speech. As long as the speaker remains peaceful and in the public right-of-way, he/she is protected by the First Amendment, like Cindy Sheehan and everyone else with "unpopular" positions. Phelps is a US citizen, and he has the same rights you and I enjoy, which include expressing his views in public.

If you want to change the Constitution to bar Phelps, write your reps. Until then, he's protected.

I am sorry for the loss of your father.

[amandabeech]

64. Under current Constitutional law, very few rights are completely

unrestricted, IIRC. Challenged laws are subjected to certain level of scrutiny, the details of which I cannot recall, including balancing other Constitutional rights and the interests of other against the right in question.

In this case, First Amendment free speech rights would be balanced against the right of privacy, which right, again IIRC, subsumed in the penumbras and emanations of the the same First Amendment. Establishing the right to privacy was, IIRC, a key to the Griswold opinion concerning the availability of birth control pills. Thus, the right of privacy extends to our most private moments. In my opinion, the right of privacy at a private funeral service qualifies, even though the private moment occurs on public property.

It would not surprise me if the government's defense to a challenge of the present law contained portions of my argument.

Thank you for your condolences.

[wordpix2]

82. Read the 1st Amendment-it is general. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded

public place; you can't joke about a bomb or gun in the security line or on an airplane; you can't exhort people to commit violent acts or hate crimes. There ARE some commonsense restrictions on free speech and rightly so.

[wordpix2]

80. I'm with you, Amanda.

[amandabeech]

107. Thank you for your support. n/t

[stevedeshazer]

35. The First Amendment is clear - Fred Phelps has every right to protest

I never thought I'd say anything in support of that despicable bastard, but he does have the right. Period.

[wordpix2]

66. First Amendment is not so clear. It states:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

=These rabidly anti-gay sicko demonstrators can still exercise their freedom of speech, assembly and petition; just not do it within a reasonable time frame and distance from a military funeral.

I don't see a problem with their Constitutional rights.

[stevedeshazer]

67. I don't agree

The First Amendment does not stipulate that Americans can only exercise their rights "within a reasonable time frame and distance from a military funeral."

Isn't restricting Fred Phelps' right to assemble and petition just the same as the restricting the right of citizens to protest King George?

[Towelie]

69. There is a big difference

Phelps can still assemble and petition, just not at a military funeral. And the reasoning is simple: Free speech has limits, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. A private citizen, who has not provoked anybody, who is probably at their worst point in their entire life, should NOT have to be subjected to speech which causes further personal, emotional, and mental anguish.

King George was a public official, with the obligation to take care of his citizens. Being a tyrant, the citizens protested, as is their right when the actions of a government official need to be scrutinized.

These protests aren't all that peaceful either. I mean, they don't riot, but they're not quiet at all. They yell at the victim's family and friends.

[Zhade]

89. There is no fundemental right to not be offended by another's speech.

Even at funerals.

I read posts like this, and I no longer wonder why Americans have forgotten their basic rights.

[wordpix2]

78. you're right that 1st Amendmt is not that specific; however, these people

are NOT being denied their right to protest, petition and assemble. They can do all those things---just not within a certain time frame and distance from the funerals. I think the restrictions are reasonable considering the circumstances.

[Tesha]

75. What part of "shall make no law" is unclear to you?

> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

What part of "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
is unclear to you?

Tesha

[wordpix2]

79. how is their freedom abridged? They can still protest, petition & assemble

I guess you think it's OK for people to yell and scream at you during your family's funerals, especially if/when you have a family member who dies in some tragic way at a young age. Common sense seems to be absent here.

[Tesha]

81. If that's what it takes...

> I guess you think it's OK for people to yell and scream
> at you during your family's funerals,...

I hereby extend an invitation for you to come, stand on the
nearest public land, and yell and scream at my funeral.

Yes, if that's what it takes to preserve our rights in this
country, then it's okay by me.

You apparently don't value your rights very highly, though.
But don't worry, soon they'll all be gone and you won't have
to worry about the pesky protesters any more.

I do agree with you, though, that common sense seems to be
missing among *MANY* DUers.

Tesha

[wordpix2]

83. wow, how little respect you have for your family members if you think

it's OK to come to their funerals and yell and scream

[Tesha]

84. Actually, I have great respect for my family members.

Actually, I have great respect for my family members.

Unlike many DUers, I'm pretty sure they understand what's
important and what's not, and so they also understand that
the right of Americans to speak freely *FAR OUTWEIGHS* any
right they might have to have solemn silence at my funeral.

(Did you notice my permission only extended as far as my
funeral? I'll let my other family members speak for themselves.)

Then again, my funeral might very well have Led Zeppelin playing
at extremely high volumes, so it's quite possible a bunch of
yahoos carrying on somewhere nearby might not even be noticed.
Solemnity is highly over-rated.

Tesha

[wordpix2]

85. OK, you're entitled to your opinion & any kind of loud funeral you want

When my father died, we did not feel like rock and rolling with loud music and I would guess that most people who have lost a young person at the prime of his life in Iraq would feel the same.

The "solemnity" you say is overrated is, for most people, a genuine state of sadness and quiet reflection about the family member who just died. Maybe you just can't relate to that.

[Tesha]

86. No, what I can't relate to is *TRASHING THE CONSTITUTION*

No, what I can't relate to is *TRASHING THE CONSTITUTION*,
even though DUers are more than willing to do it all the
time for a little temporary comfort.

But I guess you get the government you deserve.

Tesha

[Towelie]

87. So as Americans...

The Constitution gives us the innate right to cause unsolicited and potentially severe emotional and mental distress upon other private citizens in a time of grief and sorrow?

I'm sure that's exactly what the founding fathers wanted when they wrote the first amendment.

[treestar]

96. Yeah, pretty much

Because people control their own reactions.

Some things are just more important than our emotions. We have to be tough enough to live with that.

Freepers get terribly afraid and emotionally hurt by war protestors. But that doesn't mean they can't do it.

We can't let these oddball occurrences drive us away from free speech. We can condemn those who are doing it without having to make it against the law. Making it against the law opens up the kind of law to quell the emotions of the freepers.

Let's not give up our freedom for security from terrorists, as if we could - let's certainly not give it up for security from emotional upset.

[Zhade]

90. No respect? S/he has so much, s/he won't stop fighting for their rights.

NT!

[wildwww2]

37. I guess he had better ban protests at abortion clinics. If fair is fair.

Respect for America`s Fallen Heroes Act? Give me a break. Bu$h`s manipulation of cannon fodder act. Might be more appropriate. Bu$h and Phelps both pander to their own brand of hate mongerers. Their God is supposed to be the judge of people. Let people exercise their 1st ammendment rights peacefully and let god decide in the end who should be punished in his or her own way. I want to introduce the "President`s shouldn`t be so stupid act".
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[LiberalFighter]

39. Did they change the headline or is wrong headline provided?

NY Times has it as "Bush Says U.S. Must Honor War Dead"

Did they change since this morning?

[Zhade]

42. I told people this was going to happen.

Good job applauding the attackers that gave him the justification to do this, guys. So, what's next - banning protest elsewhere?

[Thor_MN]

49. Is * planning on actually attending a funeral to boost his poll ratings?

Making this a pre-emptive attack on anyone trying to protest HIM?

[HuffleClaw]

53. this won't survive a court challenge

ok, in a JUST world it wouldn't survive a court challenge but in BushWorld who knows? its just one more step in their crushing of dissent. i wonder what their next step will be. they've managed to silence dissent at 'national security events', which of course can be ANYTHING they want them to be.

[Placebo]

57. haha, FreeRepublic.com

Lord knows that if these people weren't holding up signs saying GOD HATES FAGS at the funerals of fallen soldiers, Freepers wouldn't have a problem with it.

[nolabels]

68. Some body must have got their mail order crown mixed up

Just because it fits on head doesn't indicate you should wear it


http://www.magicmakers.com/retail/Hats/jestergoldcrowntall.html

What next? baning protests of protests :rofl:

[CornField]

71. Great! Where will he ban free speech tomorrow?

Anyone here that doesn't agree the Phelps family are POS? Okay, so let's move on... The "Leader of the Free World" just signed a bill banning free speech. Doesn't matter if don't agree with what's being spewed because, without a doubt, there will be someone who doesn't agree with what you have to say.

So... if this does hold up in court... who's next?

[Tesha]

72. Blatantly unconstitutional, not unlike the entire Bush "presidency" (NT)

[CGrantt57]

76. Phucking Phascist. N/T

[Freddie Stubbs]

108. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers support fascism?

They voted for this law:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll129.xml