Yes, the freedom to assemble in peace and the freedom of speech is protected by our constitution, too. However, the city has to be notified in advance if you plan a public demonstration.
We have a similar problem with Nazi marches. Whenever a Nazi march takes place, the city tries to forbid it because Nazis are not welcome in any city and there is always a counter demonstration. The Nazis invariably go to court and win. However, the police can restrict the march to certain parts of the city to keep the Nazis and anti-Nazis apart.
In this sense I thought it might be possible to keep these people away from a funeral. It's not fair that people cannot bury their loved ones in peace because the freedom of speech of some perverse fanatics has the bigger legal protection.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6507971.stm
If you can watch this documentary, it gives a good idea of what exactly this "church" is. In reality, it's little more than a cult of Phelps family members who use the name "Baptist" loosely. And to further complicate things, Phelps ran for governor of Kansas in 2000 as a Democrat.
As mentioned above, states are enacting laws to require protesters to remain 500 to 1000 feet from funerals, largely in response to Phelps's gangs. One other thing that has occurred is a counter-protest where former military members arrange a "honor guard" of Harley Davidson-riding motorcyclists who park their bikes in front of Phelps, rev their engines as much as possible when the procession passes, and then follows on.
And finally, the reason they protest military funerals is due to IEDs. At some point, a bomb exploded near their compound in Topeka, Kansas. Phelps's gang interpreted this as an attack by the government on their church. As a result, they started protesting those soldiers who died from similar explosions in Iraq, which I believe by now has just spread to all soldiers in general.
And the Tin Eagle makes an excellent point.
If you can watch this documentary, it gives a good idea of what exactly this "church" is. In reality, it's little more than a cult of Phelps family members who use the name "Baptist" loosely. And to further complicate things, Phelps ran for governor of Kansas in 2000 as a Democrat.
As mentioned above, states are enacting laws to require protesters to remain 500 to 1000 feet from funerals, largely in response to Phelps's gangs. One other thing that has occurred is a counter-protest where former military members arrange a "honor guard" of Harley Davidson-riding motorcyclists who park their bikes in front of Phelps, rev their engines as much as possible when the procession passes, and then follows on.
And finally, the reason they protest military funerals is due to IEDs. At some point, a bomb exploded near their compound in Topeka, Kansas. Phelps's gang interpreted this as an attack by the government on their church. As a result, they started protesting those soldiers who died from similar explosions in Iraq, which I believe by now has just spread to all soldiers in general.
And the Tin Eagle makes an excellent point.
If the media didn't give them any attention, they might stop what they were doing. Instead the media in the US likes to shine a huge spotlight on idiots and morons. It's ridiculous what people will do to get some notice.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If the media didn't give them any attention, they might stop what they were doing. Instead the media in the US likes to shine a huge spotlight on idiots and morons. It's ridiculous what people will do to get some notice. [/QUOTE]
I agree. To make it all worse - coverage-wise - last night this group was featured on 20/20. In a way I was disappointed. While I don't think they should be given this air time, I feel like if it does happen, then it should be in depth. They just touched the surface of it, including, mainly as stated above, the harassment at soldiers funerals. I think it's vital to point out just how far this group will go to 'get the message out there'.
One part that was particularly disturbing was the interview with the children. John Stossil (sp?) interviewed an 8 year old and a 10 year old. They were talking with anger/rage at how 'fags' will go to hell and yet when they were asked if they knew what fags were, they hesitated. One of them finally said a fag is "someone who doesn't believe in the right god - like jews".
Then, at the end, this tiny girl, two or three years old if that, is singing a song of hate and she has this, IMO, evil little smile at the end of it.
Very disturbing. It's good that this is limited to one family but they have so many kids among them (Shirley alone has 11 kids) that this could grow into something big. Hopefully, lawsuits and judgments like the last one will keep them in check.
I agree. To make it all worse - coverage-wise - last night this group was featured on 20/20. In a way I was disappointed. While I don't think they should be given this air time, I feel like if it does happen, then it should be in depth. They just touched the surface of it, including, mainly as stated above, the harassment at soldiers funerals. I think it's vital to point out just how far this group will go to 'get the message out there'.
One part that was particularly disturbing was the interview with the children. John Stossil (sp?) interviewed an 8 year old and a 10 year old. They were talking with anger/rage at how 'fags' will go to hell and yet when they were asked if they knew what fags were, they hesitated. One of them finally said a fag is "someone who doesn't believe in the right god - like jews".
Then, at the end, this tiny girl, two or three years old if that, is singing a song of hate and she has this, IMO, evil little smile at the end of it.
Very disturbing. It's good that this is limited to one family but they have so many kids among them (Shirley alone has 11 kids) that this could grow into something big. Hopefully, lawsuits and judgments like the last one will keep them in check.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If the media didn't give them any attention, they might stop what they were doing. Instead the media in the US likes to shine a huge spotlight on idiots and morons. It's ridiculous what people will do to get some notice.[/QUOTE]
Contronversy generates public attention, which then turns into high ratings.
If Bill O'Reilly was a moderate, he'd have less than half of the viewers he has right now. A lot of these viewers are disgruntled liberals who want to know what he will say next that will piss them off.
Contronversy generates public attention, which then turns into high ratings.
If Bill O'Reilly was a moderate, he'd have less than half of the viewers he has right now. A lot of these viewers are disgruntled liberals who want to know what he will say next that will piss them off.