Missouri Senate passes bill banning military funeral protest

[cmh6476]

let's hope the house follows suit :thumb:

[Amnorix]

I don't oppose the bill, as I think that a protest at a military funeral is wildly inappropriate, but depending on how it's drafted it might be an infringement of freedom of speech. Just FYI.

[Cochise]

Sounds good to me.

Keep away the tasteless of all stripes, from peaceniks to Phelps.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

People should have better taste--you shouldn't protest when someone's family is grieving--but the government should not be allowed to intervene. This seems like a clear example of repression of expression, to go Jessie Jackson on you. I thought conservatives hated government intervention into the private life?

[Adept Havelock]

As much as I dispise Mr. Phelps and his band of merry misanthropes, I have to disagree with this law.

You either have the right to free speech or not. This is no different than attempting to legislate political correctness or good taste.

Besides, w/out a law like this, there's a much better chance of some of the attendees at a funeral that's protested...taking the matter into their own hands. j/k.

[Adept Havelock]

I thought conservatives hated government intervention into the private life?

That depends if you are talking about a classic conservative, or one of the new big government/nanny state "social" so-called conservatives.

[Sully]

This law is bad.
A) It is an infringement on freedom of speech.
B) If they are going to outlaw protesting at funerals, it should be for ALL people's funerals.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

That depends if you are talking about a classic conservative, or one of the new big government/nanny state "social" so-called conservatives.

ha...i know...it was a veiled shot at the myth of conservatism that exists in American politics.

[Pitt Gorilla]

That depends if you are talking about a classic conservative, or one of the new big government/nanny state "social" so-called conservatives.
ROFL

[patteeu]

As much as I dispise Mr. Phelps and his band of merry misanthropes, I have to disagree with this law.

You either have the right to free speech or not. This is no different than attempting to legislate political correctness or good taste.

Besides, w/out a law like this, there's a much better chance of some of the attendees at a funeral that's protested...taking the matter into their own hands. j/k.

I don't know how I come down on this law, but your last sentence, even though it is a joke, is why this isn't a clear cut free speech issue. Emotions are understandably high at a funeral without adding protestors to the mix.

[Lurch]

This law is bad.
A) It is an infringement on freedom of speech.
B) If they are going to outlaw protesting at funerals, it should be for ALL people's funerals.

Eh....you ever heard of "time, manner, and place restrictions" that have been upheld, in numerous Supreme Court cases, as constitutional? I suspect not.

[patteeu]

B) If they are going to outlaw protesting at funerals, it should be for ALL people's funerals.

That's a good point.

[Lurch]

People should have better taste--you shouldn't protest when someone's family is grieving--but the government should not be allowed to intervene. This seems like a clear example of repression of expression, to go Jessie Jackson on you. I thought conservatives hated government intervention into the private life?

You must have failed civics and government classes, I see. That, or you might be a product of KC public schools. Which is it?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Explain to me what exactly is illogical about that statement.

[Lurch]

Explain to me what exactly is illogical about that statement.

Time, manner, and place restrictions.

Supreme Court Cases: Grayned, Cox, Coates, et al

[Pitt Gorilla]

You must have failed civics and government classes, I see. That, or you might be a product of KC public schools. Which is it?Doesn't the fact that you've set up a rediculous dichotemy say something about your relative intelligence?

[Lurch]

Doesn't the fact that you've set up a rediculous dichotemy say something about your relative intelligence?

Your facetious/sarcasm meter needs adjusted. The dichotomy I set up, exposed the absurdity of his (and others) contention that reasonable limits on the right of assembly are unconstitutional, when in fact the court has validated such restrictions on numerous occasions.

[Brock]

Doesn't the fact that you've set up a rediculous dichotemy say something about your relative intelligence?

Probably about as much as your inability to spell ridiculous or dichotomy.

[tiptap]

Time, manner, and place restrictions.

Supreme Court Cases: Grayned, Cox, Coates, et al

Supreme Court of ILLINOIS.

vs US standards
The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly. However, there must a "clear and present danger" or an "imminent incitement of lawlessness" before government officials may restrict free-assembly rights. Otherwise, the First Amendment's high purpose can too easily be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

Although the demonstrators were peaceful and no violence erupted from onlookers, the marchers were all convicted of breaching the peace. However, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions in its 1963 decision Edwards v. South Carolina, finding that the "circumstances in this case reflect an exercise of these basic constitutional rights in their most pristine and classic form." The high court said that the government could not criminalize "the peaceful expression of unpopular views."

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly/overview.aspx

[jAZ]

Pure political pandering. Talk about pussified... Those soldiers fought and died for the right to protest their funeral. And the politicans are pissing that sacrafice away to score easy political points at the expense of liberty.

As repulsive as I think Fred Phelps and his nutjob followers are, I think this effort by the politicans is far more of a threat.

They died for our right to protest... even if we protest their deaths.

[Baby Lee]

Pure political pandering. Talk about pussified... Those soldiers fought and died for the right to protest their funeral. And the politicans are pissing that sacrafice away to score easy political points at the expense of liberty.

As repulsive as I think Fred Phelps and his nutjob followers are, I think this effort by the politicans is far more of a threat.

They died for our right to protest... even if we protest their deaths.
Specifically?

[memyselfI]

While I hate Phelps and think his behavior at these funerals is abhorent, I think it's rather ironic that the military dies trying to defend democracy only to have one of the tenants of that democracy banned. :hmmm:

[jAZ]

Sounds good to me.

Keep away the tasteless of all stripes, from peaceniks to Phelps.
Yeah, lets restrict our freedoms to those we find tasteful.

[Baby Lee]

Re: time and place restrictions. Those already exist. The soldier's funeral that occasioned this legislation was covered [discreetly] by a local AM station. They reported that the Phelps clan was cordioned off to a designated area 50-75 yard [or so, can't remember the specific, except it was far enough way to be a minimal intrusion]. The funeral procession was directed away from the protest, and the Phelps were not allowed to proceed to Jefferson Barracks and the burial. Reporter said, as sickening as the entire concept was, Phelps clan performed their protest in an appropriate manner, displaying their banners for the time prescribed, no yelling or taunting, no straying from the cordioned area, no interaction with the proceedings, pick up and leave as soon as the procession to JB left.

[go bowe]

Supreme Court of ILLINOIS.

vs US standards
The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly. However, there must a "clear and present danger" or an "imminent incitement of lawlessness" before government officials may restrict free-assembly rights. Otherwise, the First Amendment's high purpose can too easily be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

Although the demonstrators were peaceful and no violence erupted from onlookers, the marchers were all convicted of breaching the peace. However, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions in its 1963 decision Edwards v. South Carolina, finding that the "circumstances in this case reflect an exercise of these basic constitutional rights in their most pristine and classic form." The high court said that the government could not criminalize "the peaceful expression of unpopular views."

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly/overview.aspx from the link you provided:Government officials may not impose restrictions on protests or parades or other lawful assemblies in order to censor a particular viewpoint or because they dislike the content of the message. However, they may impose some limitations on assembly rights by enacting reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions designed to further legitimate regulatory objectives, such as preventing traffic congestion or prohibiting interference with nearby activities. sounds like prohibiting the interference with funerals might be a permissible time place and manner restriction, as previously noted by lurch...

[go bowe]

eh, baby lee beat me to it...

i wonder why i keep thinking babbly lee when i see your screen name?

although it was a clever play on your screen name, it was wholly innaccurate - and that's kinda what made it so funny...

something so preposterous coming from... well, "him", just struck me as funny and i still chuckle about it now and then...

sorry, i don't mean to offend, but it still haunts me...

taco has done put a spell on me, dammit...

[Baby Lee]

Text of Bill (http://www.senate.mo.gov/06info/pdf-bill/perf/SB578.pdf)

Looks to go beyond reasonable time and place restrictions to a total restriction from 1 hour prior to 1 hour post. "In front of or about" is sure to be litigated as well.

[Brock]

Yeah, lets restrict our freedoms to those we find tasteful.

Let me guess, you have no problems with restrictions on the second amendment.

[Baby Lee]

something so preposterous coming from... well, "him", just struck me as funny and i still chuckle about it now and then...
You probably still laugh at poop jokes too, so . . . ;)

[go bowe]

Text of Bill (http://www.senate.mo.gov/06info/pdf-bill/perf/SB578.pdf)

Looks to go beyond reasonable time and place restrictions to a total restriction from 1 hour prior to 1 hour post. "In front of or about" is sure to be litigated as well.off the cuff, i'd say there's constitutional problems with the bill under current guidlines from the supremes...

but that could change when sam alito gets on the court, who knows?

personally, i think restrictions on demonstrations at funerals are a good thing and if the legislature can clean up the bill a little bit, maybe the time restriction might stand up with the roberts court...

[go bowe]

You probably still laugh at poop jokes too, so . . . ;)why yes, yes i do...

[jAZ]

I don't know how I come down on this law, but your last sentence, even though it is a joke, is why this isn't a clear cut free speech issue. Emotions are understandably high at a funeral without adding protestors to the mix.
Murder, assault, threats, batter, harassment... all already outlawed. No need for anything else.

It's the same argument that conservatives bitch about with the "hate crime" laws. Murder is murder. There is no need for seperate "hate crimes" laws. There is no need for seperate "keep military funerals free of violence" laws.

All of that in addition to the "seperate but equal" issues and and the free speech issues.

There are restriction of both free speech (and for Brock) "arms" control. I don't want anyone freely walking around with pocket nukes. I don't want anyone freely slandering or libeling.

Our laws are pretty effective.

These people died for Fred Phelps *right* to protest their funerals.

I can't think of worse way to disrespect the sacrafices of those soldiers and their families than to ban the very rights they are fighting to protect.

Politics at it's very worst right here.

[Cochise]

Let me guess, you have no problems with restrictions on the second amendment.

My hypocrisy meter was clicking pretty loudly at that one, too.

[patteeu]

Murder, assault, threats, batter, harassment... all already outlawed. No need for anything else.

It's the same argument that conservatives bitch about with the "hate crime" laws. Murder is murder. There is no need for seperate "hate crimes" laws. There is no need for seperate "keep military funerals free of violence" laws.

All of that in addition to the "seperate but equal" issues and and the free speech issues.

There are restriction of both free speech (and for Brock) "arms" control. I don't want anyone freely walking around with pocket nukes. I don't want anyone freely slandering or libeling.

Our laws are pretty effective.

These people died for Fred Phelps *right* to protest their funerals.

I can't think of worse way to disrespect the sacrafices of those soldiers and their families than to ban the very rights they are fighting to protect.

Politics at it's very worst right here.


One thing I know I would support would be the right of a cemetary owner to deny access to his property to those who aren't invited to the funeral.

[patteeu]

Murder, assault, threats, batter, harassment... all already outlawed. No need for anything else.

It's the same argument that conservatives bitch about with the "hate crime" laws. Murder is murder. There is no need for seperate "hate crimes" laws. There is no need for seperate "keep military funerals free of violence" laws.

All of that in addition to the "seperate but equal" issues and and the free speech issues.

There are restriction of both free speech (and for Brock) "arms" control. I don't want anyone freely walking around with pocket nukes. I don't want anyone freely slandering or libeling.

Our laws are pretty effective.

These people died for Fred Phelps *right* to protest their funerals.

I can't think of worse way to disrespect the sacrafices of those soldiers and their families than to ban the very rights they are fighting to protect.

Politics at it's very worst right here.


I don't agree that this is the equivalent of hate crimes laws, but since you think so, do you oppose hate crimes legislation, jAZ?

[jAZ]

I don't agree that this is the equivalent of hate crimes laws, but since you think so, do you oppose hate crimes legislation, jAZ?
The examples that I am aware of, I do.

[jAZ]

One thing I know I would support would be the right of a cemetary owner to deny access to his property to those who aren't invited to the funeral.
I agree 100%.

[Boozer]

I'm against it, like I'm against most (all?) government restrictions on speech that are viewpoint-based.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You must have failed civics and government classes, I see. That, or you might be a product of KC public schools. Which is it?


Excellent use of sources to back up your point. Seeing that 'jAZ' stated the actual facts about the cases, I think that most are well aware of how you fared in said classes.

Now if it were Fox News viewership Gold Star day, you'd probably be shining.

[Baby Lee]

Murder, assault, threats, batter, harassment... all already outlawed. No need for anything else.

It's the same argument that conservatives bitch about with the "hate crime" laws. Murder is murder. There is no need for seperate "hate crimes" laws. There is no need for seperate "keep military funerals free of violence" laws.

All of that in addition to the "seperate but equal" issues and and the free speech issues.

There are restriction of both free speech (and for Brock) "arms" control. I don't want anyone freely walking around with pocket nukes. I don't want anyone freely slandering or libeling.

Our laws are pretty effective.

These people died for Fred Phelps *right* to protest their funerals.

I can't think of worse way to disrespect the sacrafices of those soldiers and their families than to ban the very rights they are fighting to protect.

Politics at it's very worst right here.
This legislation isn't about the battery or harassment itself. It's about the strength of likelihood that the protest will lead to battery and harassment.
Instead of analogizing to hate crime laws, where you can hate all you want and it isn't relevant until you commit a crime, you should analogize to drunk driving laws, or prostitution and drug use, which are in place because of the strong connection between the activity and other attendant crimes.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

This legislation isn't about the battery or harassment itself. It's about the strength of likelihood that the protest will lead to battery and harassment.
Instead of analogizing to hate crime laws, where you can hate all you want and it isn't relevant until you commit a crime, you should analogize to drunk driving laws, or prostitution and drug use, which are in place because of the strong connection between the activity and other attendant crimes.

That is completely preposterous. Such a law, and concurrent worldview would only serve to eliminate all forms of non-violent protest deemed unacceptable by whatever power structure is currently in place. If you want to live in a fascist country, then follow this advice by Baby Lee. If not, I suggest otherwise.

[Boozer]

This legislation isn't about the battery or harassment itself. It's about the strength of likelihood that the protest will lead to battery and harassment.
Instead of analogizing to hate crime laws, where you can hate all you want and it isn't relevant until you commit a crime, you should analogize to drunk driving laws, or prostitution and drug use, which are in place because of the strong connection between the activity and other attendant crimes.

IIRC, in cases like this, where the problem is anticipated violence against the speaker, the state has a pretty tough burden to show that banning the speech (or regulating the time, place and manner) is the only way they can prevent violence. At least, they have to show that it would be very difficult to protect the speaker from the angry mob. Given the Phelps clan's relatively peaceful experience with their many protests, especially when there is a police presence, I think Missouri's law is bogus.

[Baby Lee]

That is completely preposterous. Such a law, and concurrent worldview would only serve to eliminate all forms of non-violent protest deemed unacceptable by whatever power structure is currently in place. If you want to live in a fascist country, then follow this advice by Baby Lee. If not, I suggest otherwise.
I'm starting to believe your eyes have been brown for some time.

And congrats for skating to the bleeding edge of Godwin's Law.

[Boozer]

I'm also not sure "protect[ing] the emotional well-being of persons paying respects to the deceased"* is important enough to deny Phelps right to espouse his views at a time and in a manner guaranteed to generate more publicity and exposure than what he could otherwise get.


*Reason provided by the bill.

[jAZ]

This legislation isn't about the battery or harassment itself. It's about the strength of likelihood that the protest will lead to battery and harassment.
Instead of analogizing to hate crime laws, where you can hate all you want and it isn't relevant until you commit a crime, you should analogize to drunk driving laws, or prostitution and drug use, which are in place because of the strong connection between the activity and other attendant crimes.
I'd say that the best analogy draws upon aspects of both situations. Both the duplicate legislation to deter unwanted behavior and legislating against risky behavior.

Of course, the drinking/driving example is flawed in that the actor being regulated is putting OTHERS rights (life) at risk by chance of killing them. The right that is being given up is the right to drink alchohol.

In the funeral protest issue, the actor being regulated is choosing to put THEIR OWN rights (life) at risk. The right that is being given up is one of the very pillars of the foundation of the country.

The risk/reward trade off on this funeral issue isn't even remotely comparable to that of drunk driving.

[jAZ]

And congrats for skating to the bleeding edge of Godwin's Law.
This is a pretty agregis example of facist leaning legislation. This is so bad, that it's appropriate, IMO, to skate that edge. Certainly more so than other situations. This is MUCH worse than the NSA thing, which is in itself a terrible practice (declaring illegal actions legal and circumventing established legislative and judicial procedures because you seel they don't apply to you, and refusing to approach congress for the necessary changes to the law.

Facist dictators act first and ask permission later. That's not democracy.

And yet this MO law is much worse, IMO.

[cmh6476]

This law is bad.
A) It is an infringement on freedom of speech.
B) If they are going to outlaw protesting at funerals, it should be for ALL people's funerals.
actually it is, i just erroneously added the "military" part because it stemmed from military funeral protests.