Legislators quick to limit Free Speech to protect Grieving Families
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Monday, January 24, 2011 02:36
VIEWED: 6327
PAGE 1 of 9
Hello,
I just read this on fox news:
Quote:
"Arizona state lawmakers approved emergency legislation that would order protesters to stay 300 feet away from the funeral. The bill passed unanimously in the House and the Senate is now headed to Gov. Jan Brewer for her expected signature.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the lead sponsor on the bill, said in an e-mail to colleagues before the bill was passed that the plan was to protect the victims' families from the "hateful protest" from the Westboro Baptist Church.
She said she has the support of the Senate president and Gov. Jan Brewer, and the bill will go into effect "immediately" once it's signed.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/arizonans-rally-prevent-wes
tboro-church-disruption-shooting-victims-funerals/#ixzz1Amt6Naxp"
The link was in an item posted by Wulf, and it has left me dismayed.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I love free speech. I do.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The link was in an item posted by Wulf, and it has left me dismayed.
But I'm surprised I'm not dismayed. 300 ft from a funeral doesn't seem so bad to me right now. I actually wish they had done that earlier for other funerals too. This is not principles talking. This is just how I'm feeling.
What a bad anarchist I'm turning out to be.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not surprised either, I'd certainly hate to be known as the guy who wants these families to suffer further so the westboro psuedobaptist can get their rocks off. That's how you'd be labeled if you opposed this, not as 'pro-freedom of speech.'
On a personal note, protesting a funeral is extremely disrespectful. I worry that this law could lead to more laws further limiting 'freedom of assembly' or 'free speech' but as is I see no problem with the proposed law.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I guess I'm the jerk who gets to defend the repugnant arsehole.
I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, you're right. I agree with you.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.
This one time though, just when it comes to WBC, I WISH I didn't agree with you.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
With you on that Anthony...
these are dangerous precedents, as much because when I heard the restriction I kind of went "oh well" too. It's easy to let these things go when we think the people its being done to are abusing the right...but we probably shouldn't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anything that makes it so the WBC doesn't get it exactly their way is A-OK in my book.
Socialist and unashamed about it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I'm probably the jerk who's looking at it from a pragmatic point of view. They know it won't pass constitutional muster, they know it won't stand up to judicial review - but it will last UNTIL AFTER THE FUNERALS, which is all they want at the moment. It's purely a short-term "fix" they're after, not a long-term law or a precedent-setting one. But the problem with laws is, they DO tend to set precedent, and more than we're a "nation of laws" (as is so often cited), we're a nation of precedents.
It will be fought, but those fights will take time. Meanwhile, the law will stand while funerals and remembrances go forward.
I have problems with the precedent, but I have no real issues with the IDEA behind them. I get why they're doing it, but they really should admit that, when it suits them, they're completely willing to set aside portions of the Constitution they swore to uphold. It *IS* a darn pesky document at times, isn't it? So thorny and full of briars...
The Westboro Baptists are, to me, no different than those who take their guns to town hall meetings and Presidential appearances. Sure, they're within their "rights", strictly speaking, but I sure to wish they'd learn to exercise a bit of restraint.
This Space For Rent!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:No, you're right. I agree with you.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.
This one time though, just when it comes to WBC, I WISH I didn't agree with you.
^This.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I guess I'm the jerk who gets to defend the repugnant arsehole.
Ah, but not the only one, again, Mencken..
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
Still, I think they're going about this all the wrong way - a cemetary or funeral home is private property, and thus can indeed choose who they allow on the premises.
That no one has used this particular tack against WBCs ill advised behavior is something that really annoys me - we can respect both the right of free expression and private property here, and in doing so accomplish all we wish without trampling on the Constitution or making laws which have such tremendous potential for abuse.
Of course, that presumes that the intention behind a lot of folks bitching isn't to foster the creation of those laws so that they CAN abuse them, later - and that is not a presumption I wish to make, cynical as I happen to be.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME