Redstate

the freedom of speech, but I do think it is necessary to allow a grieving family to have the right to grieve in private.

I have no problem with a state legislature passing a law that restricts how close a freak show can come to a funeral procession.  Their speech isn't being restricted at all.  They can shriek all they want, just stay the heck away from a family that has given their child for the freedom of our country.  Or one that hasn't, for that matter.

Cities have all different types of ordinances that prohibit any number of offensive behaviors.  I see this as being no different.  And if the people of Minnesota have a big problem with it, they should vote their legislators out of office.  Somehow, I don't see that happening though.  Because at the end of the day, most people are decent and respectful of the dead.  And they understand the need to allow folks to have some peace when they say goodbye.

there was a law recently passed making any protests at a funeral illegal. The Phelps group, to their credit, has stated they will not violate the law.

I honestly believe the law was created to prevent the possibility of violence. Emotions at a funeral can run very high. It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to foresee a family member deciding to deal with such protestors with extreme prejudice.

I personally think the Phelps group message qualifies as hate speech. As such, I sincerely hope their "church" isn't the recipient of any public funding.

what Phelps wants.

If a bunch of crazies show up waving signs at a funeral, the appropriate course is for an able-bodied man--there should be at least one at any funeral--to take a sign and break it over the ringleader's head.

Then Phelps sues the people who physically confront their group, and that's how they fund their operation and move on to the next funeral. To help Phelps out is not a solution. The laws in Minnesota (and Indiana IIRC) are a necessary step. I think of them more as 'No Harassment' laws than restricting free speech. Next thing you know John & Ed will be against the illegality of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is none. I guess libel and slander are just 'free speech' too.

I sincerely hope their "church" isn't the recipient of any public funding.

From what I understand, Phelps' group makes their money off of people who have physically confronted them (settlements usually).

Many cities in this country have free speech zones (often in or near the town square) where political demonstrations / protests may peacefully occur, and prohibit such demonstrations anywhere else. The solution would seem to be for all towns near military installations to simply pass such legislation, and make sure that none of the free speech zones are close to cemeteries. For one, I'm a fan of such regulations in general. Free speech means you can say what you want. It doesn't mean you can say everywhere you want.

When it came to things like this, it use to be that we had loopholes- for example, a person cheering the death of your loved one at their funeral used to be considered "fighting words" and the law  said that if you got beat up it was your own fault.

This can be best seen on America's school playgrounds.

It used to be that the teachers knew who the bullies were and were focused on protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty.

Nowadays teachers are focused on "following procedure" and treating everyone "the same".  So the bullies beat the crap out of kids (like me) when teachers aren't around, and then manipulate the system so that if we dare stand up to them (like me) we get suspended.  Worse of all is that the teachers will make some comment about how they  know the truth "but my hands are tied."

Justice is not being upheld anywhere in America.  Instead we are given a bland replacement: "Order" as in Law & Order.  Which seems to come down to the blind following of the "system" regarless of the injustice purpetrated.

Tell us what you'd say to that family, which would make them accept Phelps' presence outside.

 "This is America. The freedoms your child died for are used for the better by 99.9% of our citizens. They are used for the worse by those outside and for this I empathize with you. But compromising on the principles of freedom our country stands for would dishonor your child's sacrifice."

 Two other possible approaches - aren't cemeteries private grounds and therefore wouldn't cemetery operators have the authority to bar a person or group at their discretion? And then building on that if a protest group were not allowed on the grounds but had to raise their noise from a distance, couldn't typical noise ordinances be used to then fine them if their protest exceeds the decibel limits? Their message is ill conceived, but aside from that it seems like the primary objection to the mechanics of their exercise of free speech is more about the volume, and less about their merely being there...

 Ultimately the best way to combat this is to have opposing citizens show up in numbers great enough that the family sees a ratio of support that gladdens them. This is simply putting action where words are - those who profess a great degree of support for the troops need to make their presence felt.

 The other observation is that the protesters, from what I see, aren't slandering the soldier or the family, but merely using the event as a platform from which to claim that the soldier died because God is directly intervening and causing the loss of life as retribution for some set of perceived social ills - I guess in this case homosexuality is their primary culprit. They could make this statement anywhere and at anytime. I just don't see on what grounds they are restricted from making the statement in this case but not in others such that we also continue to justly allow protests in similar cases where the message is offensive to those in the vicinity. What stops the state from also affording special restrictions against loud verbal protests by pro-life persons in the imemdiate vicinity of abortion providers? In neither case are the protesters being allowed to physically intervene or block the premesis but to say they cannot promote their message from a reasonable distance?

This is precicely(sp?) what wories or friend Capt. Ed I think.  The government, supported by the people or not, can restrict speech only to certain zones?  No protest can take place anywhere but where the government says it can?

I think that's quite a good reason for concern, regardless of people in mourning.

Personaly, I'd just run these guys through with a Public Disturbance/Disruptive Behavior charge.  Limmiting all protest, I think, is a bit much

AMEN!

The reference to Law and Order may or may not refer to the TV show, but it could.  Much of the dramatic tension there is derived from the conflict between the details of the Law and what is portrayed as the 'right.'

The entire First Amendment decrees

"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."

Some observations:

The Amendment simply prohibits the 'establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' yet some courts have interpreted this to mean that all references of any kind to religion are forbidden in certain government buildings or grounds.  That in itself is a restriction on free speech.

It prohibits 'abridging the freedom of speech,' yet we know that there already are all kinds of abridgements of free speech condoned by law and the courts.  I believe that free speech zones have already passed that test, dependent on their locations being accessible and not repugnant.  Sounds like the Minnesota law is even less restrictive than that.  Furthermore, your right to free speech is not a right to insist that certain people must hear you.

It prohibits the abrigement of 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble.'  Certainly, the right of the mourners to assemble peaceably is being abridged by Phelps.

Of course, all these prohibitions are against the Government, not against people.  But many laws exist that extend some of those prohibitions to people in general.  In fact, there are many activities that are prohibited to the people that are not prohibited to the Government.

In the Phelps case, the right to peaceably assemble is smack up against the right to free speech.  Legislation is the way democracies resolve those conflicts peaceably.  Without the legislation, we are left with the Hindraker Solution, which is no solution at all (although it would be a sweet spectacle to behold).

an abortion clinic and a church, funeral home, or cemetery, it's unlikely any explanation will suffice.

I think you have stated the fundamental case very well.  

About twenty years ago there was a problem in Dearborn, Michigan, with the disturbance caused by the loudspeakers used at mosques to call the faithful to prayer.  Neighbors were denied their peace and quiet several times a day, and the mosques stood behind their right to religious freedom.  I wish I could tell you how it got resolved, but I don't remember.  The solution should have been to treat the mosque that same as any other establishment would be treated, and cite them for disturbing the peace.

Captain Ed says, "Phelps is a bug...."  IMO, Phelps should be glad someone hasn't already squashed him.

"Or one that hasn't, for that matter."  Another excellent point.  The cause of the disturbance shouldn't matter.  The disturbance is essentially an invasion of a family event.

The situation here is indeed a tragedy.  A funeral is no place to protest, just on principle.  I still respectfully dissagree with many of the laws and courts that you mentioned above.  If we allow the precedent that certain speech can be restricted to certain zones, the slope becomes slick and slipery.

I would also dissagree that this is indeed "the right to peaceably assemble...smack up against the right to free speech."  Heckling a funeral and cheering the death of anyone is hardly "peaceable."  

free speech zones have already passed constitutional muster in the courts. Moreover, free speech zones don't restrict speech per se, but only demonstrations. And they don't even restrict demonstrations except in the sense that they require them to be performed in certain places.  Isn't that just common sense? We do that already. Afterall, we wouldn't let people "protest" in the middle of a highway, would we? And any city requires demonstrators to tell the police department ahead of time where and when they're going to stage their rally. And the PD can turn them down if their planned demonstration represents an obvious threat to public health or safety.

is that you assume free speech means you have the right to way what you want, where you want. The first part of that statement is true. The second, just as a simple point of fact, is not. You can't yell "bomb" in an airport. You can't demonstration in the middle of a highway. Cities can and do limit demonstrations to "free speech zones" within their city limits. These are well established democratic customs.

The other observation is that the protesters, from what I see, aren't slandering the soldier or the family, but merely using the event as a platform from which to claim that the soldier died because God is directly intervening and causing the loss of life as retribution for some set of perceived social ills - I guess in this case homosexuality is their primary culprit.

Not that it makes a difference, but they do claim the soldiers themselves are largely gay... so they are slandering the soldiers as well. I have no problem with the restrictions on where they can locate their protests.

The 'peaceable assembly' is the funeral party, not the hecklers.  The Phelps people are infringing on the mourners' right of peaceful assembly, and disturbing the peace as well.

To restrict them to an area away from the funeral party is not in any way unreasonable or unconstitutional.  For the hecklers to insist on being in the mourners' faces would mean they are insisting on making their protest personal.  Personal communications are not protected in any way regarding their delivery to the intended recipient.  If they want to confront the mourners, they can send them a letter.  If they want to make a political statement, they can do that three blocks away from the funeral, or on the steps of City Hall, or wherever the free-speech zone is located.

Let's be realistic.  We're already on the slope you seem to be worried about.  It's already well established in court decisions that it's not unconstitutional.  The courts have set for themselves and the legislatures the task of determining how steep the slope can become, and how far it can go.  As long as the free-speech zones don't create a de facto suppression of speech, I think they will continue to be upheld.

Let's also recognize that the staged confrontations are intended to get press coverage that wouldn't otherwise be available.  Their message is repugnant to normal people.  The MN state senator/politician only shows her need for publicity of her own by opposing the legislation.  As for PowerLine and Captain Ed, I think they overreacted to an essentially benign piece of legislation.

I was making assertions that were based only on common sense and a sometimes faulty memory.

Aside:  Are you back in school?  We have a Katrina rescue dog in our pack now.  He was picked up at a truck stop in Texas, but the picker-upper was on her way back from helping with pets stranded by Katrina.  He's a wonderful Jack Russell Terrier, if there is such a thing.

Tell us what you'd say to that family, which would make them accept Phelps' presence outside.

"This is America. The freedoms your child died for are used for the better by 99.9% of our citizens. They are used for the worse by those outside and for this I empathize with you. But compromising on the principles of freedom our country stands for would dishonor your child's sacrifice."

I don't see how that would make a typical family accept Phelps' presence and abuse.  It is a rationalization for what you'd apparently want to see--that the family simply sucks it up and drive on.  But, that's not what I asked you to do.  I asked you to tell me (and us) how you'd sell the family on Phelps' presence.  I'm still waiting.

aren't cemeteries private grounds and therefore wouldn't cemetery operators have the authority to bar a person or group at their discretion?

Yes, but Phelps' crew mostly shows up at the churches where the funerals take place.  They're not dumb enough to trespass on private property.  

And then building on that if a protest group were not allowed on the grounds but had to raise their noise from a distance, couldn't typical noise ordinances be used to then fine them if their protest exceeds the decibel limits?

This doesn't do much for the "God Hates Fags" signs the crew of miscreants wave around--the signs from which the family must avert its eyes as they drive to/from the funeral.

it seems like the primary objection to the mechanics of their exercise of free speech is more about the volume, and less about their merely being there...

Did you read my diary?  I'm starting to wonder.  I actually am more focused on their being there, because of what they're saying WHILE they are there.

The other observation is that the protesters, from what I see, aren't slandering the soldier or the family,

OK--now I know you're blowing smoke.  You must know next to nothing about what Phelps' group says at these "protests."

Go to Blackfive or Mudville Gazette and read what Team Phelps does and says at these funerals.  There's plenty of slander there.

zroxx, you still haven't given us a solution here.  I see you're troubled by this whole affair.  But, you seem to leave it at that.  And, you seem OK with the family bearing the burden of Phelps.  

Not me.  We disagree. Have a nice day.

lawsuit.

If it were my kid's funeral, I'd go to trial and make him try to argue his lousy case in front of a jury.

I'm in school. LSU was only closed for about a week and a half for the two Hurricanes. It was the schools in New Orleans that were wiped out.

I didn't provide a link for the free speech zones comment because I figured the existence of such zones was common knowledge. My hometown has them, and I know others do as well.

 Touched some nerves with this one I see! Didn't actually think I was being so controversial...

 But to your comment, what is the difference in the context of exercising free speech? Are you saying different kinds of speech, including protests, may be (should be) allowed or disallowed at abortion clinics versus cemeteries?

the Fair Access to Clinic Entrances Act with regards to limiting protests? Either something comparable could be applied here or the FACE act is itself a compromise of the First Amendment. I know this doesn't help for solving the Phelps problem but it seems to be the only constitutional choice we have.

 It seems to me the scenarios you describe in which restricting speech is desirable (yelling "bomb!" and creating a physical presence that restricts/prohibits the movement or exercise of rights by others) are fairly differentiated from the Phelps protesters who neither restrict or block movement by other persons nor could be reasonably construed as endangering other persons as by setting off a riot or stampede.

 So far all I see Phelps doing is offending the sensibilities of those in the immediate vicinity. Is he being criminally obscene - perhaps that's an angle to attack him on? I guess I'd like to see a good reason for restricting them that then can't also be applied to other cases that don't really warrant a restriction. This seems to be the same conundrum that stymied Powerline and Captain Ed...  

 It's not that I don't wish Phelps would stop or even better get a bad gum infection and be unable to spew his bile for a good long while, but I tend to want a solid, justifiable reason for curtailing freedoms which we can apply narrowly to only those cases that we mean it to, and not to other situations where the emotional aspects that seem to drive us in this case (supporting the troops, grieving mothers) aren't a factor.

you propose LECTURING the bereaved?

 Well, to be fair to me, you did seem to ask for that when you challenged readers to "pretend a grieving family is standing in front of you"...

 I guess your position is that it would always be impossible to convince any family in a similar situation to accept the presence of a protest. I don't agree... some families aren't capable of accepting their child's death at all - despite praise and support and honor for their sacrifice - while others accept it and move on. I suspect there's a spectrum of viewpoint and some families would indeed shrug off the protest, seeing it for the circus it is, and others wouldn't. I gave you a stab at what I'd say, it obviously falls short for you. Maybe this is why I'm not a politician!

Yes, but Phelps' crew mostly shows up at the churches where the funerals take place.  They're not dumb enough to trespass on private property.

 Aren't churches also private property? Part of my problem is that I can't see any evidence that the protesters are physically blocking or threatening anyone. They stand where they can and be exceedingly offensive - but, I gather, not obscene enough to violate a law on that basis either.

I actually am more focused on their being there, because of what they're saying WHILE they are there.

 What if they stood there quietly with signs and only spoke softly to persons asking them why they're protesting?

 What if they stood in front of City Hall or at some other location with a lot of people but well away from the proceedings and loudly protested the funeral, sullied the name of the deceased, and declared that God had punished him/her for the sins of America?

 Do the grieving families have the right to not be offended but the rest of us have to suffer the fool because we're not party to the funeral?

OK--now I know you're blowing smoke.  You must know next to nothing about what Phelps' group says at these "protests."

 Well, now look - I read the links you supplied and went on what you wrote and cited. So you're right, I didn't know exactly what he was saying. It doesn't matter to me, I already get the idea that he's a first class jerk - who apparently has yet to violate a law.

 So our best solution is, make one up that keeps him a little bit farther away but still able to say exactly the same nasty, mean things he has been? Then it seems to be that this solution also isn't addressing what he's saying. The solution is addressing the fact that the grieving family can hear what he's saying, which is why I suggested earlier that it seemed to me the biggest complaint was the volume.

 I want you to know I did search a bit and found a first hand accounting of a protest here. Definitely an offensive bunch but even the writer who witnessed it first hand had this to say:

I got to thinking about what kind of country allows people like this to flaunt their unpopular opinions while being protected by the police. The answer, I decided, is only a country that is strong in our democratic beliefs and sense of our own destiny would continue to allow this.

zroxx, you still haven't given us a solution here.

 Wouldn't it be a better victory for us to beat Phelps at his own game, show up in masse, and in so doing make his efforts look utterly futile as well as asinine? Rather than attempting to legislate him away? You really didn't address my suggestion that countering him directly would better illustrate to the larger public that his voice is a tiny tiny one in the face of an overwhelming stand by those on the side of dignity and respect. Instead of only being a problem, why not see him as the opportunity - provided vis-a-vis our right to speak out - to present our side and support the family and drown him out in a sea of light? That's a more powerful message, I think, than what will happen if he's moved down a block and still protests, un-opposed.

And, you seem OK with the family bearing the burden of Phelps.

Not me.  We disagree. Have a nice day.

 Have a nice day? Hey, I'm really not "OK with it", and I truly feel for the family. But I'm more often than not going to err on the side of freedom in these kind of matters, and so far I don't see anything rising to the level of yelling "bomb!" in a crowded theatre here to warrant taking a different view. I recognize this is a highly charged issue and that you feel strongly about it. But really, I don't think I was being dismissive of your concerns or feelings, merely answering a posting which I interpreted that you wanted a lot of thought and feedback on - "What Do we DO about Phelps". We may disagree on how best to counter his message but trust me, I'm no fan of his.

 I respectfully leave you with the last word, if you want it. Thanks for the diary and the information!

Correction: "You can't have a demonstration ..."

I wouldn't.  There are certain times where one's speech can be regulated.  Here, when it interferes with people saying good-bye to a relative who has defended this country - something that clearly falls under freedom of religion - there are reasons to regulate the speech of Phelps and his goons.

think Hinderaker's onto something.

I mean, ConservativeD is right, in the sense that Phelps is hoping for a violent confrontation that enables him to (a) play the victim against Those Awful Queer-Lovin' Military Families™, and (b) sue, to fund his odious operation.

But a confrontation need not be violent. My understanding is that the Phelps faction is, however noisy, relatively modest in size. What if 25 or 50 or 100 people turned up at these funerals with the express purpose of keeping Phelps and his cohorts away from the funeral party? Non-violent; shoulder-to-shoulder or linked hands, if need be. Just ensuring that they don't get anywhere within earshot of grieving family members.

Another remedy might be for cemetary administrators to invoke property rights to remove Phelps &c from the cemetary premises as trespassers.

I strongly agree with Captan Ed and Hindraker.  The worst possible use of legislation is to remedy a specific, outlier annoyance. This is a common and increasing misuse of (especially) the power of state legislators.

The best actual solution? Walk up to Fred Phelps and punch him in the nose. And dare a jury to convict you for it. We all want the tidiness of neat rules, of lists of "can do's" and "Can't do's".  But life does not often conform to such neatness. It is not possible (thankfully) to make a law pre-emptively proscribing a certin type of speech by a particular man or organization. So the options are either pass an overly broad law hoping to ensnare the man in the net (bad, bad idea), or go punch him in the nose. That is what a real man would do.

I must agree with you on this one. Phelps and his people stay within public areas and are non-violent, which I think they have a 1st amendment right to do, regardless of who and what they are protesting. If we make an excpetion for this type of speech, what is next. The 1st amendment gives a clear right and if we deny it, it will start a slippery slope to denying other types of speech that you think should be protected.

but nothing anybody else has said seems to have gotten through.

"But to your comment, what is the difference in the context of exercising free speech? Are you saying different kinds of speech, including protests, may be (should be) allowed or disallowed at abortion clinics versus cemeteries?"

Very simply, the difference in context of exercising free speech has been recognized by civilized people for centuries.  The expression, "There's a time and place for everything" covers it well.

If I wanted to, I could go into some depth about the difference between protesting with noise and signs outside a place of business versus outside a church, a hospital, a funeral home, or a cemetery.  IMO, an abortion clinic falls somewhere between a hospital and a business.  Practical arguments can be made for allowing more or less protesting at the various venues.

But my opinion is that they all should be treated the same--no protesting allowed within sight or within hearing.  By aiming their 'free speech' at particular people, they have left the arena of protected public debate and entered into the arena of attempting to deliver a personal communication.  No stretch of the imagination could require that a resisting recipient should be forced to receive the message.

I wanted to comment here, too.

"Wouldn't it be a better victory for us to beat Phelps at his own game, show up in masse, and in so doing make his efforts look utterly futile as well as asinine?"

Why in the world should a grieving family be forced to round up a phalanx of counter-protesters to drown out the voices of Phelps and hide his posters?  That requirement in itself would be part of the harassment.  And the bagpipers in Massachusetts would have been as disruptive to my father's funeral as the protesters would have been.

"I can't see any evidence that the protesters are physically blocking or threatening anyone."

I just watched a news report about a high school boy who has been adjudged to have felt threatened by a cartoon on the internet; a cartoon not even sent to him.  The very presence of the Phelps group is threatening, because they could become violent, or their presence could cause others to become violent.

"Do the grieving families have the right to not be offended but the rest of us have to suffer the fool because we're not party to the funeral?"  

The point is, the mourners can't avoid the Phelps group.  You can, by avoiding the free-speech zone.  But even if you have to go there, they won't be aiming their vitriol at you.

"What if they stood there quietly with signs and only spoke softly to persons asking them why they're protesting?"

Again, the point is, that's not what is happening.  If it were, there would probably be no controversy.

You quote Bubblehead, "I got to thinking about what kind of country allows people like this to flaunt their unpopular opinions while being protected by the police.  The answer, I decided, is only a country that is strong in our democratic beliefs and sense of our own destiny would continue to allow this."  

Although I thought his entire article was very good, I think he was a bit off on this one idea.  The problem with the Phelps group is not primarily that their ideas are unpopular, it's that their actions are repulsive.  They could express those ideas all day long away from the mourners and their family homes, etc and they shouldn't be bothered by anyone.  They wouldn't offend the bereaved, But they'd also get no publicity.

What about the laws governing protests and protesters at abortion clinics?  Don't they apply to Phelp & Co.?

Re: "... nor could be reasonably construed as endangering other persons as by setting off a riot or stampede."

You don't think so? If any speech were designed to incite this would be it. But in any event I am not proposing that we ban the Phelps demonstrations. I am proposing that more municipalities act to restrict demonstrations to free speech zones. That is a fair solution that applies to all kinds of speech equally.

His group was protesting at the funerals of some of the miners recently killed in accidents in West Virginia.

The grieving families were stunned - as anyone would be. You don't expect some crazy wacko nutjob shrieking "God Hates Fags" amd "These Miners Are Dead Because America is Run by Fags" or some such. But that's what Phelps' group does.

Anyway, a local man (maybe a sheriff?) was quoted in the papers saying that Phelps better not show up at any more funerals (more were planned that week) because people in WVa have guns, and the sheriff couldn't be sure he could protect Phelps.

Phelps didn't show up at any more funerals for miners.

It's not a bad tactic. Nobody got hurt, Phelps got run off.

From Captains Quarters, today:

Smagar asks me for a solution to Fred Phelps and his use of free speech to make an ass out of himself. I don't believe that there is one, short of more free speech. I do think that any restraint on public speech, especially political speech, starts us on a road that leads to a requirement for government permission to speak out at all. One Red State commenter already suggested a "free speech zone" in communities where all rallies could be assigned. Before the advent of the BCRA, the entire country was a free speech zone. Defining public land as off-limits to political speech allows totalitarians to narrow it down so far as to be useless, and as conservatives, we should fight even the beginnings of that trend.

So what do we do about Fred Phelps? The same as we do about Michael Moore, Pat Robertson, David Duke, Janeane Garofalo, Ted Rall, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, anarchists, and all of the assorted fringe elements that spew hatred and filth -- we use our freedom of speech to expose them for what they are. In fact, given the resources of the Internet, perhaps we could expose them in a literal sense by identifying all of the little morons that follow Phelps to these funerals and ensure that their neighbors and co-workers know who they are and what they do with their free time. That takes work and effort, and doesn't rely on the government to decide which speech deserves airing and which doesn't.

What I would say to the families is that restrictions on speech sound great as a solution -- until you need to speak out against what you perceive as injustice. When others then restrict your ability to protest, such as the recently-overturned restrictions on demonstrations outside of abortion clinics -- then it will be too late. We will have already agreed that speech has to be controlled by government, placing our core freedom in the hands of whatever group has their hands on those levers.

I appreciate the Captain's graciousness, by first taking the time to respond, and then writing an eloquent reply.  And, I still disagree.

I understand the slippery slope argument.  But, we citizens (and our elected representatives) must also look out for the welfare of our communities and our neighbors.  Sometimes, that means you have to be willing to travel the slippery slope.

I know these decisions aren't easy, or clear-cut.  There are many gray areas.  But, ultimately, it is up to us to weigh the pros and cons, wrestle as best we can with the tough questions--and then, ultimately decide.  Eventually, we have to make the tough calls.  In the case of a republican form of government, "we" is the legislators (whom the people elected) who write the laws and the executives (also elected) who first sign and then administer them.

No one is saying that republics can't run amok or make errors.  But, overall, a representative democracy has proven to be the best method for protecting all the people's interests, to include both liberty and security.  At some point, we have to trust it.  Trust that our fellow citizens--whom we elected to office--will do the right thing.  

(And if they don't, we do have several checks and balances.  An independent judiciary, an aggressive media [conventional and alternative] and the ballot box all jump immediately to mind).

From what I can tell (and I'm not a lawyer), the law does allow for buffer zones of the kind that would keep Team Phelps away from the churches where families and friends wish to bid farewell to their loved ones.  Being able to do so, in peace and dignity, is IMO a right one should be able to enjoy in his or her own community.  As Team Phelps has seen fit to impose on the grieving family and community with their actions, I see no problem with the community taking legal action in response, to defend the rights of law-abiding citizens to grieve in peace.  These are fallen servicemen we are talking about here, not public figures.

In this case, I trust the state legislatures and city/county councils to act properly and judiciously.  To balance the right of Team Phelps to speak with the family's right to grieve and be respected.  Personally, I think the Minnesota law does both.  Yes, it is a slippery slope.  But life is full of slippery slopes.  We can either tackle the problems that face us, or submit to them.  

As citizens in a democracy, I say that we shouldn't fear the slippery slope.  Respect it, but don't fear it.  Don't let it paralyze you.  When necessary, we must be ready to tie a rope to the sturdiest tree we can find, so we won't lose our footing, and press on. In my opinion (and, that's all I'm offering here), the ability of families in my community to grieve for their fallen loved ones in peace and dignity is something worth preserving, something worth defending. It's worth risking a trip on the slope.  

You, catolibertarian23, actually agree that it's better to physically attack someone who is committing no crime other than gross discourtesy, rather than peacefully requiring him to move to a spot where his discourtesy would be minimal but his speech would be unrestricted?

The problem here is not his ideas, nor is it his expression of those ideas.  The problem is his actions, and where they are taking place.  To regulate that is not unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has upheld time, place, and manner restrictions on speech and assembly, and this may be a case for that.  Also, if the cemetaries are private property that is one way to easily restrict speech on them.  If it is public it may be constitutional under the court's jurisprudence on the issue as cemetaries are not traditional places to protest and there are no decision makers there to influence.

Trespassing charges.

An announcement beforehand that members of the Westboro Baptist Church and/or Code Pink are not welcome - and that any such appearance will result in trespassing charges being pressed would work wonders.

will heed the words of a Gold Star mother

But...but...I thought Gold Star mothers have "moral authority" in everything?

/Sheehag sycophant

You're right--one GS mother does not speak for all, whether she's right or wrong.

Thank God for the Patriot Guard Riders!  (the site's kinda slow right now due to heavy traffic)

Captain Ed can always be counted on to reply to opposing views in a fair and gentlemanly manner.  Hats off to him.

I agree with the fact that Phelps and his gang have a 1st amendment right to protest exactly where they are protesting, on public property. If you feel offended by his speech, then you have limited recourse. I personally would not resort to violence, but that is a better option than ripping up the Constitution.

that also passes Constitutional muster is a far cry from "ripping up the Constitution."

I agree with many libertarian ideas.  Forcing people to listen to vile insults hurled at their departed loved one, when a peaceful alternative is available, isn't one of them.

Although I strongly believe that the Constitution isn't a 'living document,' I also believe that when it was written there were standards of public behavior that were taken for granted.  Since we have let those standards slip so far, legislation in a case like this is appropriate.

I think we should stay away from subjective lines of what constitutes proper public behavior. The 1st Amendment gives a right to free speech and Phelps is well within his rights when he protests these funerals. If we say his free speech is wrong and must be moved 300 feet further away, what type of speech is next? What if liberals wanted to write laws that say you cannot protest abortion clinics unless you are at least 500 feet from them? Where is the line we draw? The bottom line is that the Constitution is law and should not be altered or interpreted on whims and subjective standards of proper behavior.

is whether the Constitution prohibits legislative restrictions on where certain types of speech can take place.  If such restrictions aren't prohibited, it then becomes clear that legislatures can create them legislatively.

When you consider it, all legislation is aimed in some way at modifying behavior so that it stays within the range we call 'proper,' and that range is determined by standards that are always to some extent subjective.

It may seem like the prohibition against "abridging the freedom of speech" would mean 'no restrictions of any kind.'  But courts have already determined that not to be the case.  Some restrictions are acceptable.  It's up to legislatures to decide how much to restrict, and then the courts can accept or reject the restrictions based on all those prior cases and all those subjective standards.

on this diary.  They've added quite a bit to the quality of this thread.