I'm definitely with the ACLU on this one. That you're not supposed to "ruin" funerals shouldn't be a legal matter. Idealy, it should be a private matter.
Creating laws like this is not only bad from an idealistic point of view, though. Laws should IMO never be enforced on the public based on isolated cases - and never ever in an atmosphere of agitation. Because each new law is a potential source of confusion, ambiguity and exploitation. This law, for instance, seems very loosely worded, and could be used for matter it wasn't intended for later on. This has to be weighted up against the benefits of the law prior to its ratification, and only in cases where the benefits substantially outweights the negatives should it be accepted.

I'm puzzled.

Why don't gay protesters protest against these "godhatefags" people? Why don't troop supporters try to protect the funerals from these lunatics? I'm quite sure there should be more gays (and nationalist supporters) than nutjobs, and that would be the most democratic way to solve it...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I'm definitely with the ACLU on this one. That you're not supposed to "ruin" funerals shouldn't be a legal matter. Idealy, it should be a private matter.

How do you mean a "private" matter? As in a matter for the funeral party to resolve privately with the protestors? Because it doesn't seem like the GHF crew are really the sorts of people who are open to reason.

In principle, I support the rights of people to hold funerals with legal protection from insane groups like this one (even in the form of, say, a restraining order), but I think you're basically right in what you say:

quote:

Creating laws like this is not only bad from an idealistic point of view, though. Laws should IMO never be enforced on the public based on isolated cases - and never ever in an atmosphere of agitation. Because each new law is a potential source of confusion, ambiguity and exploitation. This law, for instance, seems very loosely worded, and could be used for matter it wasn't intended for later on. This has to be weighted up against the benefits of the law prior to its ratification, and only in cases where the benefits substantially outweights the negatives should it be accepted.

Australia recently introduced laws against "sedition" in order to prevent radical Islamic clerics from encouraging terrorism and Victoria (my state) introduced "anti-hate speech" laws at the end of the last decade to combat public racism. Both of these are worthy aims that I agree with in principle, but both are undoubtedly unreasonable restraints on the free exercise of opinion and these issues (radical Islam and racism) would have been better addressed by encouraging speech and debate rather than suppressing it. Generally, so long as a problem can be solved without the introduction of a new law (especially when we're talking about laws that encroach on vital civil liberties) then the legal approach should always be the final recourse, not the first.

As you say, these laws will generally outlive the matters they were introduced to solve to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I'm puzzled. Why don't gay protesters protest against these "godhatefags" people? Why don't troop supporters try to protect the funerals from these lunatics? I'm quite sure there should be more gays (and nationalist supporters) than nutjobs, and that would be the most democratic way to solve it...

I'm actually suprised that these people don't encounter violent protests more often. I think there's often a "counter-protest" wherever these people turn up, but I think most right-thinking people would probably feel a bit uneasy about turning up at a funeral to protest, even if it is just to protest against the people already protesting there, so they don't often meet large opposition. It's only a matter of time before the patrons at one of these funerals decides to turn violently on these people though, I'd imagine.

(Welcome back btw. Love the new avatar. )

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

I'm all for free speech, but I too must draw the line somewhere. There are some things that should be held "sacred" even in non-religious contexts. One of those is a funeral. In a time of loss and sadness the last thing I'd want, or I think anyone else would want, is a bunch of nut jobs spewing their ridiculous rhetoric.

There are laws about defacing graves, but what about defacing the dead? I really don't see much of a difference. If they hate "fags" or "soldiers" then they can head down to the gay bar or military base and protest all they want. To protest infront of people mourning the loss of a loved one is uncalled for.

The next time you're at the funeral for a loved one, I'm sure you'll realize how awesome it would be to have a protest going on in the name of hatred against "fags" or "soldiers," as grandpa's being put to rest.

I could have sworn the US had laws against hate speech. I believe what those people are staying and protesting is definitely hateful

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade How do you mean a "private" matter? As in a matter for the funeral party to resolve privately with the protestors? Because it doesn't seem like the GHF crew are really the sorts of people who are open to reason.

I meant that ideally people should be relied upon to not be this insensitive to each other.

Practically, however, I agree that this group is clearly beyond pedagogical reach, and do not expect it to change its ways without external pressure. I just don't think that 100 insane people, that isn't causing more damage than this, warrant their own law. They could be put away on charge of insanity, arrested for instigating violence, or failing a state intervention, the local community around them could make life miserable for them (refusing to sell them groceries, play loud music when they have their sermons and similar legal terror). I don't have the silver bullet, but I'm pretty sure that starting up the legislative machine for something like this, will open up the floodgates for a long series of strange and cumbersome laws. Maybe a single law stating that preaching outside of dedicated buildings is illegal. That would also make sure that ID stays out of the classroom.

i would like to see how the laws were enforced and onto whom before i made a final judgement, but i certainly draw the line at protesting at a funeral. if youre not allowed to yell \'fire\' in a crowded theatre then i dont think you should be allowed to disrespect the dead, especially not from a godhatesfags perspective.

yes, i know theres a slippery slope when you start limiting free speech and ideas you find abhorrent, but ultimately im less concerned with that than i am about a constitution that can be invoked to protect such acts of disrespect.

given these are military funerals, im more than surprised there havent been serious injury or death on the side of the god botherers. i doubt if i could maintain enough self control not to react violently if they were protesting outside a funeral i was attending.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm actually suprised that these people don't encounter violent protests more often. I think there's often a "counter-protest" wherever these people turn up, but I think most right-thinking people would probably feel a bit uneasy about turning up at a funeral to protest, even if it is just to protest against the people already protesting there, so they don't often meet large opposition. It's only a matter of time before the patrons at one of these funerals decides to turn violently on these people though, I'd imagine.

I see and, yeah, that's what's bound to happen, I believe.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade (Welcome back btw. Love the new avatar. )

Cheers - heh, I guess you were the first one to recognise Bert

Off-topic: Do you read books on-line? I once stumbled upon an on-line version of "L'Etranger", but I can't seem to find it anymore. I guess it was even legal...

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Off-topic: Do you read books on-line?

Not usually. It's much less convenient trying to read a book off a computer screen I find, so generally the only works I read are shorter ones or ones that I normally wouldn't otherwise be bothered to track down in a physcial form (I've read Mein Kampf and Communist Manifesto online for instance). If you aren't already familiar with it, btw, this site is well worth checking out:

http://gutenberg.org/

quote:

I once stumbled upon an on-line version of "L'Etranger", but I can't seem to find it anymore. I guess it was even legal...

I don't think Camus' works are in the public domain yet. According to wikipedia's article on French copyright law:

quote:

Duration of proprietary rights The general rule is that the proprietary rights of the author last for seventy (70) years after his or her death (Art. L123-1)

If that's accurate, then the copyrights on Camus' works don't expire until 2030.

[/derail]

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If that's accurate, then the copyrights on Camus' works don't expire until 2030.

[off-topic] Oh... I thought it was 50 years after the work being published, but I never really confirmed it - and I was wrong. Strangely enough, I do believe I had downloaded it off that Gutemberg Project website, but maybe they realised it wasn't legal and took it off.

Oh well, thanks for the help [/off-topic]

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Civil rights attorney Norman Siegel appeared on FOX News’ The O’Reilly Factor this evening to defend the Westboro Baptist “Church”’s right to protest the funerals of slain soldiers.

>>Video<<

[edit]
I can kind of see what Siegel is saying but where are the morals?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."