House OKs Bill To Ban Funeral Protests (by Westboro Baptist Church)...

[Peter Frank]

(AP) SPRINGFIELD, Ill. Loud noises, shouting and hateful language on signs would be banned near funeral services under a proposal on its way to Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who says he will sign it.

The Illinois House voted 101-0 Tuesday to approve the ban, which bars protests within a 200-foot zone shortly before, during and shortly after funeral services.

The proposal comes in response to anti-gay protesters at military funerals around the country.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a Topeka, Kan., church led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, say the soldiers were killed because they fought for a country that condones homosexuality. They have shown up at funerals with signs that read "God Hates Fags" or "God Made IEDs," a reference to roadside bombs.

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_115191207.html

[951-Riverside]

1. The Phelps are paid shills for the fascists ruling this country

When people see the Phelps they think its okay for the government to prohibit free speech regardless if its public or private property.

[lumpy]

2. A damn good thing.

Just one so-called 'freedom of speech' that should be stomped on.

[FreeState]

3. Unless its a gay mans funeral

These people have been doing this to gay people for years -no one tried to ban them - but once its a service man/woman it becomes a priority.

PATHETIC

PS.... this will never hold up in court - people have a right to protest - weather you agree with what they are saying or not.

[Peter Frank]

4. Well...

...the ban only, "bars protests within a 200-foot zone shortly before, during and shortly after funeral services."

[Zynx]

12. It's not what they're saying, but where they're saying it.

Just get them far enough away that they can't disrupt the funeral. They don't have the right to disrupt a private service.

[Tesha]

14. If they're on a public way? ...On a public cemetary?

> They don't have the right to disrupt a private service.

If the protesters are on a public way? ...Are on land
belonging to a public cemetary?

Be careful what rights you readily give away; you may
want them some day!

Tesha

[Zynx]

16. For goodness sakes, the First Ammendment only applies to political

speech. This has been the interpretation for a long time whether you like it or not. There is nothing political about a funeral and I think people at such a sensitive time have a right to not have the passing of their loved one politicized. If they don't have such a right to peace and quiet then we have become one loud and obnoxious country.

[Tesha]

19. Your premise is questionable and your conclusion is wrong.

> For goodness sakes, the First Ammendment only applies to political speech.

Your premise here is questionable. WWhat the First Amendment
actually regulates is the government's ability to regulate
*YOUR* speech, no matter what the topic.


> There is nothing political about a funeral...

When the funeral is for a soldier *WHO FELL IN THE SERVICE
OF THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP*, the funeral itself is inherently
an event with political overtones.


Again, I'm amazed at how quickly you are willing to surrender
*OUR* rights.

Tesha

[lumpy]

22. Couldn't agree more.

The 'free speech argument' is faulty. 'Free speech' should not include shouting in someones face anymore so than peeing on the sidewalk in a public place.

[TankLV]

23. Boy is that an understatement!

And the whore media/media whores are referring to them as "anti-war activists" not fucking "fundy wacko radical CHRISTIAN clerics" which is what they are.

[Peter Frank]

5. No matter how disgusting speech can be -- it should always be free...

What's good for the goose...

[Brazenly Liberal]

6. This is a huge mistake

I'm sure the intentions are good, but the results are not likely to be.

It's highly doubtful it could hold up in court and it shouldn't.

As much as we despise Phelps and his ilk, this law will only garner him more attention and draw more sickos to his "cause." But, worse, it could set a precedent.

Your rights are only as secure as the rights of the worst of the worst. Remember, Miranda was a slimeball, too.

The right of the people to protest has been under assault from the Bush administration for years, now. "Free speech zones," that oxymoronic construct, are becoming more and more commonplace. You can speak, but only if it's in an area where you are unlikely to be heard. This law, as well meaning as it is, does little or nothing to decrease the level of hatred. It only contributes to the Put Up or Shut Up atmosphere.

[Wickerman]

9. "Remember, Miranda was a slimeball, too."

thank you for framing the argument so concisely, my friend.

:applause:

[TankLV]

24. I also agree - and the REPUKES will use it to expand those "1st Ammendment

Zones" regs to make them a minimum of a hundred miles away.

Be very careful about giving up any of our rights.

The more appropriate tactic would be to just as vehemently and actively and loudly protest at THEIR locations - church, homes, schools, etc.

Give them a taste of their own medicine IN SPADES!

[Tesha]

7. Blatantly unconstitutional.

As are "Free Speech Zones", college "PC speech
codes", and yes, buffers around abortion clinics.

You can ban people specifically harassing other
people but you can't ban speech in general.

Tesha

[Efilroft Sul]

11. Damn straight. First Amendment says so.

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

The whackos at Phelps' church got themselves a case.

[Zynx]

13. It doesn't ban what they're saying.

It simply moves them a respectable distance away from the service so they are not disruptive. They have a right to say what they say, but they do not have a right to disrupt private services.

[Tesha]

15. Ten miles is a respectable distance, no?

200 feet today can easily become ten miles in the future.

It's astonishing how readily you give up your rights!

Tesha

[Zynx]

17. I am prepared to risk it.

Free speech is already curtailed in many instances and I am still free to criticize the administration as I please. I don't buy into the slippery slope argument.

[Vidar]

8. Way overdue.

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. I wonder if this is not a set up

tinfoil hat: who would not be against this? Even the most conservative neo-con has respect for dead soldiers. They are the most revered in our society. So, anyone would be willing to give up a few rights to prohibit the freaks from abusing the families of dead soldiers. So, everyone in the US (except the protesters) agree to forgo our civil right to protest at funerals. They purposefully chose this forum for another deterioration of our civil rights. What is next?

I do not trust this administration. This law is a bad idea.

[Bluzmann57]

20. Um...if you actually read the article

It is in Illinois, not the U.S. House of Representatives. It is highly doubtful anything like this will get to the floor of the House. I don't trust this administration either. But I don't see any grand conspiracy here, especially when the very same Illinois House is considering an impeachment bill against bush.

[Ratty]

25. Who's not against this? I'm against it

Though it's not grammatically clear what you mean by "this" I think I know what you're saying. I'm against the ban for two reasons actually: clearly it's unconstitutional and it erodes our civil rights as you point out. But also I've always liked that these slimeballs have been so public and have received so much press coverage. These people actually say what most red state people think, and it's good to see such attitudes get the public shame and scorn they deserve. Maybe make a few red-staters think a little bit (or is that wishful thinking?). I know their actions are hard on the families involved, but at least that's the silver lining I've always seen in it.

[confludemocrat]

18. "Congress shall make no law..." blatant GD political grandstanding,

even this supreme court will not allow.

[lumpy]

21. Some things should be prohibited by law.

Just try to walk down the street buck naked and call it free speech. In some states just try burning a flag or for that matter burning trash in you back yard. Interrupting a seminar can be grounds for charges. A society that has no regulations for certain behaviors is one out of control.