BF2S Forums Constitutional Amendment to Ban Funeral Protests

Lotta_Drool wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Does free speech mean I can start going up to people's little kids in public yelling things like faggot, queer, ass banger.........  No, that is against the law.  What these religion freaks are doing is profane, therefore not protected.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … peech.html

The speech itself is protected.  The behavior is not.

Exactly!  Don't know what the issue is with this though, if people really gave a shit it would have been handled by now.  People just don't know how to get shit done by themselves anymore.

Woah there a second...before you said it was 'profane, therefore not protected'.  Now you agree that it is protected, but the behavior isn't?  Make up your mind, man!

Besides, profanity is protected speech, obscenity is not.  They are two very different things.

SenorToenails wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

The speech itself is protected.  The behavior is not.

Exactly!  Don't know what the issue is with this though, if people really gave a shit it would have been handled by now.  People just don't know how to get shit done by themselves anymore.

Woah there a second...before you said it was 'profane, therefore not protected'.  Now you agree that it is protected, but the behavior isn't?  Make up your mind, man!

Besides, profanity is protected speech, obscenity is not.  They are two very different things.

You can be profane without saying a word. 

Main Entry: 1pro·fane
Pronunciation: \prō-ˈfān, prə-\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English prophanen, from Anglo-French prophaner, from Latin profanare, from profanus
Inflected Forms: pro·fanedpro·fan·ing
Date: 14th century
1
: to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt : desecrate
2
: to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use

Try to walk through a Public school cussing at kids and when you are arrested state it is protected under freedom of speech.  These A-holes have to stay a certain distance from the funeral and they can be arrested for desturbing the peace or inciting a riot if people react to their being profane (see definition #1).

theres also fighting words doctrine

Better just ban anyone from making political, religious or any other controversial statements at a funeral.

SenorToenails wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Woah there a second...before you said it was 'profane, therefore not protected'.  Now you agree that it is protected, but the behavior isn't?  Make up your mind, man!

Besides, profanity is protected speech, obscenity is not.  They are two very different things.

You can be profane without saying a word. 

Main Entry: 1pro·fane
Pronunciation: \prō-ˈfān, prə-\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English prophanen, from Anglo-French prophaner, from Latin profanare, from profanus
Inflected Forms: pro·fanedpro·fan·ing
Date: 14th century
1
: to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt : desecrate
2
: to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use

Try to walk through a Public school cussing at kids and when you are arrested state it is protected under freedom of speech.  These A-holes have to stay a certain distance from the funeral and they can be arrested for desturbing the peace or inciting a riot if people react to their being profane (see definition #1).

The speech is protected, the actions are not.  You are free to say whatever you like, and are thus free to suffer the consequences of that action.  In your example, it's not that you said those words that is bad, but where you said them.  That's the point, and it's a very important one.  The discussion is about amending free speech to block protection of funeral protests, which is just plain wrong.

Yeah, we are on the same page. I guess my point was just that it how you use the words that makes it illegal and the situation which is exactly what you are saying also.  There really is no need for a new law IMO.  It is obvious they are disturbing the peace and infringing on other's rights by harassing them.

States and localities can--and many do--already deal with this. To modify the Constitution to deal with such a (relatively) minute issue while simultaneously chipping away at the First Amendment is fraught with poor precedent.

AussieReaper wrote:

I like the solution that they can still protest, but not within x amount of metres of the funerals. Out of earshot and sight.

Makes it easier to "deal" with the situation, as well.

Shahter wrote:

@Turq: i think you are overreacting here a little bit. ammending the fucking constitution because somebody took offence to a bunch of religious dumbfucks is just silly, imo. this whole "free speach" idea is so open to interpretation - and also vulnerable to abuse - that its would be impossible to put together a kind of ligislation that would regulate every aspect of this.
i say approach issues like that on case-by-case basis. also, as some of other posters said - i'm actially really surprised people didn't handle this by themselved. personally, i'd have no problem whatsoever if some of those religious cretins got their faces smashed.

So your solution is to physically assault offenders rather than change laws....  and I'm the one overreacting.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-10-07 06:31:15)

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

@Turq: i think you are overreacting here a little bit. ammending the fucking constitution because somebody took offence to a bunch of religious dumbfucks is just silly, imo. this whole "free speach" idea is so open to interpretation - and also vulnerable to abuse - that its would be impossible to put together a kind of ligislation that would regulate every aspect of this.
i say approach issues like that on case-by-case basis. also, as some of other posters said - i'm actially really surprised people didn't handle this by themselved. personally, i'd have no problem whatsoever if some of those religious cretins got their faces smashed.

So your solution is to physically assault offenders rather than change laws....  and I'm the one overreacting.

A beating lasts a few seconds and is quickly over. The impact is local. What you are suggesting would fundamentally change all of society rather than scare off one specific threat.

Patriot Guard usually keeps them away.

Marines are badass.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

A beating lasts a few seconds and is quickly over. The impact is local. What you are suggesting would fundamentally change all of society rather than scare off one specific threat.

Really?  So a ban on funeral protests fundamentally changes the system?

I don't know about you, but I've never protested a funeral, nor do I plan to.

I just don't feel the same level of protectiveness toward the Constitution as most people seem to.  Times change, and so must the rules.

Suggesting that the constitution be changed just to stop one particular group is a very clear fundamental change to the system.

Well, like I said, it doesn't have to involve the Constitution.  I like how some state governments have enacted bans of their own.

The fact that this has happened seems to suggest that it isn't unconstitutional to begin with.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, like I said, it doesn't have to involve the Constitution.  I like how some state governments have enacted bans of their own.

The fact that this has happened seems to suggest that it isn't unconstitutional to begin with.

It's not the speech that's being prevented by these laws.  The act of protesting a funeral is allowed--but the manner in which it is conducted can still be regulated by local laws.  I'm sure the supreme court will give some idea of just how regulated they can be.

How happy were you with the 'free speech zones' that came up a few years ago?  This isn't all that different.

I support the existence of free speech zones.  I know they can separate people from certain events, but in general, protesters do more harm than good most of the time.