Your Thoughts Exactly: Protect these idiots

Thursday, May 25, 2006

 

Protect these idiots

Congress, in their infinite wisdom and continuing efforts to make sure that they only spend their time working on legislation that solves none of the problems our nation faces in these difficult times has passed a bill that bans the act of protesting military funerals. Now when I originally saw this bill on CNN.com (it was on the front page for a few seconds before Barbaro’s broken leg restole the limelight,) I immediately chalked it up as another example of the Republican Congress trying to emasculate the Left by restricting civil liberties under the false pretenses of patriotism, in order to keep attention away from the fact that soldiers keep dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. I put this in the same vain as the Bush administration banning TV networks from filming returning caskets from overseas.

But upon actually reading the story, I learned that my partisanship had got the best of me, and that I was wrong for prejudging Congress. In fact, this was a bipartisan bill directed at a specific group of people who had taken to protesting military funerals. This group, members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas, (surprise!) shows up to bring attention to their cause. Military deaths, according to the Church and their leader Fred Phelps, are divine retribution towards the United States for our tolerance of homosexuality. Phelps gives a much more detailed, thoughtful, through, view of his attitudes on his website: godhatesfags.com.

Now personally, if I had my way, I would have no problem giving Phelps the Vito Spatafore treatment, only I would make sure he was conscious as I rammed the broomstick up his asshole. But, in this case, as in much of life, I do not get my way. There are codes of laws which I must obey lest I decide to take justice into my own hands and in doing so, infringe on the rights of Phelps and his cronies, which I sadly admit, are no more or less than mine.

Likewise these hatemongers have the right to assemble as human beings who fall under our laws and under the protections of the Constitution. The fact that Congress, as divided and ineffectual as it has been the last five years, can try to ban their presence shows that Americans collectively reject these people as part of our society and as representations of our ideals. Everyone has a right to make noise, however, and we can’t keep people from doing so even if no one likes the message, and if they are being horribly disrespectful towards people whom have suffered more tragedy then they ever have. We can predict what will happen with this group: if given the right to protest, they will either continue doing it until they get bored (and more importantly, people get bored with them and stop giving them attention,) or, in an effort to get more attention, they will commit some illegal, likely violent act, and spend the rest of their lives in prison. Hopefully, they will be ultimately harmless. Restricting first amendment rights, on the other hand, always causes harm.


Comments:
I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with you on this one. The whole history of First Amendment rights has been that you have as much freedom as long as it doesn't infringe upon other people's rights. You can't slander someone, you can't falsely yell fire, etc.

Sure, it's good to give everyone a voice, but funerals are a private affair, despite them being military funerals, and despite that they may be out in a public cemetary. Those people have a right to mourn. If I went up to somebody and started screaming in their ear, even if it was my strongly held opinion, I'm pretty sure I would be violating that person's rights. And though Phelps may not be screaming, the effects on his audience are probably much worse than that.

I think that people expect to be bombarded by the free market of ideas in a lot of places. And I think Phelps has a right to broadcast his message as much as anyone else. But funerals are not one of those places where it's ok.

The one thing, of course, is that this is probably already illegal- disturbing the peace, etc. There are plenty of statutes that they could arrest them under. Does that make this law unnecessary? Perhaps. Is it unconstitutional? I don't think so.
 
I'm with Stu on this one. Though I am troubled that it bans protests only at military funerals and not all funerals.
 
I disagree with both of you, and this law still troubles me.

If they are disturbing the peace, then they are disturbing the peace and can be stopped. If they aren't then under the new law, they still can't protest the event because it is a military funeral.

I just would rather not even begin to go down the slippery slope of restriction of first amendment rights. Especially with this administration's duel propensities to ignore Consitutional privlidges and utilize Patriotism surrounding the military to get what they want.

And Dave, stop being a bitch and write something
 
Yeah, but then by that logic you don't need any criminal laws beyond distrubing the peace. If you don't like particularizing this act as a separate infraction, why do so for robbery, theft, etc. There are probably specified, and higher, penalties for breaking this law than simply disturbing the peace, reflecting societal disdain for protests at funerals, so this bill isn't necessarily superfluous. And, again, I agree with Stu - this isn't really curtailing 1st Amendment freedoms much. There are all sorts of restrictions on speech that we are ok with, and, at least to me, this is another.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?