News High court: Does father's pain trump free speech?

[Evo]

I think Justice Ginsberg's point is spot on.

Justice Ginsburg neatly summed up the issue in its most basic terms: "This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief, and the question is: Why should the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this Marine's family when you have so many other forums for getting across your message?"

By not being allowed to target private citizens in person, or close proximity, their First Ammendment rights are not being taken away. They have plenty of places and mediums in which they can do their hate mongering.

 

[JaredJames]

I think Justice Ginsberg's point is spot on.

By not being allowed to target private citizens in person, or close proximity, their First Ammendment rights are not being taken away. They have plenty of places and mediums in which they can do their hate mongering.

Exactly. As I said above, if they really must protest using freedom of speech, why can't the government simply issue a permit for a day other than that in question, when there isn't a potential conflict to occur.

Also, they have posted a poem on their site (as per the OP article). So they clearly do have the means to protest without the need for targeting funerals.

Oh these people are sick:

Thank god for 13 more dead troops. We are praying for 13,000 more.

From their website. Disgusting.

 

[DR13]

Justice Potter Stewart stated in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, "I know it when I see it". Though this was in reference to the definition of hardcore porogrphy it is applicable to this situation. It is tough to have one single definition when it comes to free speech. But we, as a society, know what is right and what is wrong. And this specific situation is wrong, just use common sense people.

 

[JaredJames]

Justice Potter Stewart stated in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, "I know it when I see it". Though this was in reference to the definition of hardcore porogrphy it is applicable to this situation. It is tough to have one single definition when it comes to free speech. But we, as a society, know what is right and what is wrong. And this specific situation is wrong, just use common sense people.

Hear, hear!

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...h&sa=X&ei=0fCwTLSKE5CosAOz56GmDA&ved=0CBIQkAE

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

great, so anything offensive. doesn't leave much.

 

[Proton Soup]

No one raised a conflict of interest about Supreme Court justices ruling in a case involving someone that protested the funeral of a close friend of theirs? They did the same thing at William Rehnquist's funeral.

Margie Phelps, Fred Phelps's daughter and lawyer for the Westboro Baptist Church is a hard to describe character. Here's an interview she did: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/102010/10092010/569442 . In between the diatribes of hate and the imminent destruction of the United States she actually addresses a couple issues relevant to the case.

that just blows me away. everything i see in the media about these protests (including the protests themselves) makes me think they are mentally ill. but there she sounds quite lucid, and because of the points she makes, those points will completely slip past most people.

 

[JaredJames]

I do find it ironic that they preach hatred for all us fags* , and then they become lawyers and nurses.

* Any person not a member of their church by their definition.

 

[Hurkyl]

I oppose uncivilised speech.

Okay then. It would be nice if you would make this very clear, so the rest of us know when you aren't making comments relevant to the issue of the legality of it all.

There's following the word of the law and then there's being decent and having respect for your fellow man. There are a lot of things you can do within the law but it doesn't mean they are always appropriate. There's a time and a place so to speak.

All said, I can sympathize with them -- did you notice the quote BobG posted?

From the minute that soldier dies, every aspect of his life, death, burial, and funeral becomes public fodder. Politicians use those events to politic. The media use those events to tell sensational sappy stories. The military uses those events to hold patriotic pep rallies. The clergy use those events to mug for the cameras because they love to be greeted in the marketplace. The families use those events to have a big worshipfest--a public worshipfest of that dead body.

We watched that go on at these soldiers' funerals for two years before we started picketing at them. We realized that they have turned those funerals into an international public platform. Everybody uses that funeral to engage in expressive activity, and it is all one side of the dialog.

What's being said is, "He is a hero, and God Bless America." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell me about what a blessing it is to have your young son cut off in his prime lying there in a closed coffin in little tiny pieces. Have you people taken leave of your senses? So we joined that public debate.​

In my experience being a moderator, one thing I've learned is that it is really, really unfair to allow comments to which a response would be inappropriate. For example,

• It is unfair to do nothing about off-hand political comments in an unrelated thread, but then frown on people who would respond to it because they are derailing the thread. (if it happens, I put the primary blame on the person who made the original comment)
• It is unfair to forbid religious discussion, but at the same time to allow people to say things like "religion is a myth"

It is similarly unfair if we do not decry those who would turn a funeral into a political message as much or more than those who would picket that message "at" the funeral. And I mean this both as related to public opinion and as related to legal issues.

 

[BobG]

In my experience being a moderator...

You might have a tougher time moderating Supreme Court oral hearings:

Alito ups the ante: He envisions a "grandmother who has raised a son who was killed in Afghanistan or in Iraq" who goes to visit the gravesite and is approached by a war protester who says he is so happy her grandson was killed by an IED. "Now, is that protected by the First Amendment?" he asks. Phelps replies that maybe it would incite a violent reaction by the listener, so Alito qualifies, "She is an elderly person, she's not in a position to punch someone in the nose." And Scalia with the assist: "And she's a Quaker, too!"

Up In Their Grill

 

[JaredJames]

Okay then. It would be nice if you would make this very clear, so the rest of us know when you aren't making comments relevant to the issue of the legality of it all.

I think this is relevant to the legality of it. These people are hiding behind freedom of speech to preach hatred.

"Them's fightin' words" was used earlier. I don't see why this isn't considered just that. These people preach that they want soldiers to die and that they deserve to. (They also believe 9/11 was justified). So how is this not "fightin' words"?

 

[Hurkyl]

I think this is relevant to the legality of it.

Argh, then why didn't you say so when I specifically asked? e.g. I specifically wanted to know if you wanted to outlaw "uncivilized" speech.

These people are hiding behind freedom of speech to preach hatred.

As an aside, would you be equally opposed to similar speech directed at murderers? Rapists? Racists? Bigots?

 

[DR13]

As an aside, would you be equally opposed to similar speech directed at murderers? Rapists? Racists? Bigots?

These people deserve it. They chose broke the laws of society and must pay the price.

 

[Hurkyl]

These people deserve it. They chose broke the laws of society and must pay the price.

Got it. We can do all the hateful things we want to people we think are outside of the norm, but we should oppose all hateful things done to people we think inside of the norm.

 

[DR13]

Got it. We can do all the hateful things we want to people we think are outside of the norm, but we should oppose all hateful things done to people we think inside of the norm.

No, not all of the hateful things we want. We should never resort to violence or threats against their well being but it is reasonable to speak out against them. And I think that you are misusing the word "norm". I am not saying that anyone considered odd or abnormal should be spoken out against. Rather, I am saying that I do not have a problem when those in our society who commit egregious acts get what they deserve (within reason).

 

[JaredJames]

Argh, then why didn't you say so when I specifically asked? e.g. I specifically wanted to know if you wanted to outlaw "uncivilized" speech.

OK, there's a bit more to my view than that, but for the purposes of now, I'll say it should be banned.

As an aside, would you be equally opposed to similar speech directed at murderers? Rapists? Racists? Bigots?

Yes, these people have committed a crime, they are to be punished by the state / country / whoever is supposed to deal with it. Not the general public (although socially that is generally what ends up happening.)

We are all entitled to an opinion, and to voice that opinion. However, preaching hatred at these people isn't the way to do it.

They have committed a crime or have shown views that extremist and so any hatred thrown at them doesn't get considered the same way because of what they have done. There is a definite difference between shouting at a murderer and a soldier. In this case, did the soldier deserve it? Did his family do something to deserve the abuse directed towards them?

 

[Hurkyl]

it is reasonable to speak out against them.

I think it's always unreasonable to preach hatred, even if its directed against Adolf Hitler.

And don't forget that jarednjames isn't just speaking out -- he wants their (the Westboro Church) acts to be illegal.

I am not saying that anyone considered odd or abnormal should be spoken out against

The point of using the word "norm" is that what is considered an egregious act varies over time and from person to person.

 

[JaredJames]

it is reasonable to speak out against them.

I agree, it is reasonable to speak out against them. But there is a way to do that and preaching hatred and supporting violence towards them is not the way to go about it.

I do not have a problem when those in our society who commit egregious acts get what they deserve (within reason).

They get what they deserve based on the law. It is not down to general public.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes, these people have committed a crime,

Bigotry is a crime?

 

[JaredJames]

And don't forget that jarednjames isn't just speaking out -- he wants their (the Westboro Church) acts to be illegal.

For the record, I have never said make it illegal in any post (other than the last). I said to regulate it to a degree.

If the government are going to issue permits to allow this preaching, they should consider what impact it could have. In this case, the funeral was the target. I don't want to stop them preaching it, but more to request they do it on a different day so it doesn't conflict with said event.
I still disagree with what they preach, but at least then it's somewhat less targeted and can be considered 'general preaching'

Now, the only reason I have turned around and said ban it in the last post is because you seem fixated on having legal or illegal. My view (based on the requirement to maintain freedom of speech) is to leave people preach, but to put some basic guidelines (as explained in previous posts).

 

[DR13]

I think it's always unreasonable to preach hatred, even if its directed against Adolf Hitler.

And don't forget that jarednjames isn't just speaking out -- he wants their (the Westboro Church) acts to be illegal.


The point of using the word "norm" is that what is considered an egregious act varies over time and from person to person.

Ah, it seems we have a misunderstanding. I do not mean that there should be *hate* speech against people who break the laws of society. However, I do see a point in peaceful protests. And as far as the Westboro Church goes: I would hope that the Supreme Court puts a stop to it but does not necessarily make it illegal. That would be going to far. As I said before, it makes sense to handle these things on a case-by-case basis since every situation is so unique.

 

[DR13]

If the government are going to issue permits to allow this preaching, they should consider what impact it could have. In this case, the funeral was the target. I don't want to stop them preaching it, but more to request they do it on a different day so it doesn't conflict with said event.
I still disagree with what they preach, but at least then it's somewhat less targeted and can be considered 'general preaching'

My thoughts exactly

 

[JaredJames]

Bigotry is a crime?

Sorry, only read the first few. In which case, ignore the first line for the last few and just apply the rest.

 

[DR13]

Bigotry is a crime?

Not against the explicit laws, but it definitely breaks the social contract.

 

[lisab]

Not against the explicit laws, but it definitely breaks the social contract.

We don't fine or arrest people for breaking "the social contract".

 

[G037H3]

OK, there's a bit more to my view than that, but for the purposes of now, I'll say it should be banned.


Yes, these people have committed a crime, they are to be punished by the state / country / whoever is supposed to deal with it. Not the general public (although socially that is generally what ends up happening.)

racists aren't criminals

unless they commit an actual crime

hating another person or group isn't a crime in itself

 

[DR13]

We don't fine or arrest people for breaking "the social contract".

I didn't say that we should fine/arrest these people, that would be insane. But I am saying that I understand why people would want to protest and speak out against these people (not hate speech though).

 

[JaredJames]

racists aren't criminals

unless they commit an actual crime

hating another person or group isn't a crime in itself

I already answered this in a previous post. I didn't read the full list, just assumed it was a list of criminals.

I apologised and I attempted to indicate a correction.

Your post is unnecessary.

 

[JaredJames]

We don't fine or arrest people for breaking "the social contract".

No, we don't. But we can use some principles of common decency and respect to at least help prevent potential conflicts from occurring.

I'm not going through it for a fourth time, but I've made my point regarding guidelines being used for issuing permits for protests a number of times now.

If protest A could potentially conflict with event B, request that protest A be made on another day.

I will give some credit in this case, they were gone before the funeral. But still, being on the same day at the same location (and they admit to targeting the funeral) is enough for me to want these guidelines in place so that time and money isn't wasted due to these issues which could be avoided.

 

[D H]

"Them's fightin' words" was used earlier. I don't see why this isn't considered just that.

Because it's not, at least per the current meaning of that doctrine. The Supreme Court first articulated the fighting words doctrine in 1942 in rather broad terms but have been narrowing down what that concept means ever since. In essence, "fighting words" must risk an immediate breach of the peace. Snyder was not motivated to commit violence (an irrational an illegal act). He was instead motivated to file a lawsuit (a rational and legal act).

That said, some of the questions during the hearing certainly did indicate that the Court is questioning whether this is unprotected speech based on the fighting words doctrine. I will be interested to see where the Supreme Court draws the line should it side with the Synders in this case. BTW, don't expect a decision any time soon. We'll have to wait until next spring or summer. The Supreme Court always takes its sweet time, particularly on issues like this one.

 

[JaredJames]

Well they say they want soldiers to die (and others, but we'll stick to the subject here). That in it's broadest sense is showing support for people killing them and wanting them to do it. It's promoting violence towards the troops. "fightin' words" if I've ever heard them.

 

[D H]

If protest A could potentially conflict with event B, request that protest A be made on another day.

This vile church more or less did just that. Not another day, but another hour. They were out of there when the service started. That's one strange thing about this church: as irrational as their proclamations are, they are very rational when it comes to planning their activities. They call the local officials ahead of time, get the necessary permits, and obey the constraints laid upon them.

They also are very sure to inform the media, national and local, print and TV, and every other form. They relish in the undue attention given them. That undue attention is the sole reason they do this vile nonsense. They gave up protesting against NASA and at 9/11 attack sites when the media stopped showing up. The media is as much as fault here as is this group. Vile groups like this will always exist. The media feeds groups like this, both in terms of the lavish attention these groups need and in terms of contributions mailed by various useful idiots who happened to see such groups on TV.

 

[Proton Soup]

This vile church more or less did just that. Not another day, but another hour. They were out of there when the service started. That's one strange thing about this church: as irrational as their proclamations are, they are very rational when it comes to planning their activities. They call the local officials ahead of time, get the necessary permits, and obey the constraints laid upon them.

They also are very sure to inform the media, national and local, print and TV, and every other form. They relish in the undue attention given them. That undue attention is the sole reason they do this vile nonsense. They gave up protesting against NASA and at 9/11 attack sites when the media stopped showing up. The media is as much as fault here as is this group. Vile groups like this will always exist. The media feeds groups like this, both in terms of the lavish attention these groups need and in terms of contributions mailed by various useful idiots who happened to see such groups on TV.

and that seems to also be part of their point. that the media feeds, e.g., politicians that use the funerals for their own undue attention.

 

[Office_Shredder]

No, we don't. But we can use some principles of common decency and respect to at least help prevent potential conflicts from occurring.

I'm not going through it for a fourth time, but I've made my point regarding guidelines being used for issuing permits for protests a number of times now.

If protest A could potentially conflict with event B, request that protest A be made on another day.

I will give some credit in this case, they were gone before the funeral. But still, being on the same day at the same location (and they admit to targeting the funeral) is enough for me to want these guidelines in place so that time and money isn't wasted due to these issues which could be avoided.

You've said you want there to be guidelines, but you haven't really laid out what they would be. You can't just request they hold their protest at another time because it's obvious they'll just say no. You also can't take into account the content of their speech when you decide whether or not to issue a permit; so you need rules in place that would prevent this sort of thing from occurring without actually mentioning the specific conflict between events that is taking place.

A rule like you can't have a rally if there's a funeral in town is unlikely to pass Constitutional muster. What specific wording would you suggest that would not open up the town to millions of dollars in liability when they're sued for infringing on first amendment rights?

 

[Gokul43201]

Well they say they want soldiers to die (and others, but we'll stick to the subject here). That in it's broadest sense is showing support for people killing them and wanting them to do it. It's promoting violence towards the troops. "fightin' words" if I've ever heard them.

Your everyday definitions are not useful. There is a very specific definition of 'fighting words' as it applies within first amendment cases. D H took the effort to provide this definition - it doesn't help at all that you completely ignore the legal definition and choose to go with your own version.

And by your definition "Support the troops" should also count as fighting words, as it shows support for some people killing others.

 

[BoomBoom]

I really think there should be a Gay Pride Parade held every Sunday up and down the street in front of this church! ...and by all means, it should be as lewd as the law will allow!

 

[mugaliens]

None of the freedoms granted in our Constitution or its amendments are absolutely. All have limits involving reasonability and rationality. For example, 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't not extend to trailering a howitzer along for a weekend camping trip. Similarly, 1A's restrictions including a prohibition against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no such fire exists, as doing so unnecessarily harms (endangers) those who're attending the show.

Protesting a funeral is a gross violation of 1A rights as it causes harm to the friends and family who are in mourning.

It is, however, encroaching on a slippery slope...

In most locales, a permit must be obtained before staging a protest, and permits are often refused on grounds that a protest is likely to create a disturbance of the peace. This sounds like a great time for communities to simply enact and enforce the permitting process.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Protesting a funeral is a gross violation of 1A rights as it causes harm to the friends and family who are in mourning.

Where does it guarantee this in the first amendment? Just because an action isn't constitutionally protected doesn't mean that its opposite is

 

[Astronuc]

Westboro's funeral protest clearly troubles Supreme Court
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/06/101689/supreme-court-divided-about-protecting.html

US military funeral protest case opens in supreme court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/07/us-military-funeral-protest-supreme-court

The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.
. . . .
A funeral for the fallen Marine was held in March 2006 in Westminster, Md. Snyder, 20, died from a non-combat-related vehicle accident on March 3, 2006, while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

According to a Web site created in Snyder's honor, his relatives filed the civil lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church to "bring an end to the reign of terror and abuse that they inflicted" upon grieving families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30/marines-father-ordered-pay-protesters-court-fees/

I looked into Maryland's anti-harassment statute some time ago. I can't find all the information at the moment, but this is one article I found.

§123 of Article 27 of the Maryland Code makes it a misdemeanor to "follow another person in or about a public place or maliciously engage in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys another person."

To be guilty, the defendant must have acted without an otherwise legal purpose and have engaged in the forbidden conduct "with intent to harass, alarm, or annoy" "after reasonable warning or request to desist," according to the statute. "This section does not apply to any peaceable activity intended to express political views or provide information to others."

Adapted from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20010920/ai_n10048016/

Snyder's case is legally weak because it's not clear that folks of Westboro Baptist Church have violated any law. Phelps et al did their homework, obtained permits, and complied with restrictions as to where they protested, i.e., they did not approach the Snyder family or attendees of the funeral, and then they apparently left before the funeral started. It doesn't appear that they were asked to leave. Furthermore, they are making a political statement.

US military funeral protest case opens in supreme court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/07/us-military-funeral-protest-supreme-court


I think the purpose of Snyder's case is that he wishes to stop Phelps et al from protesting at or near funerals of fallen servicepersons, but he is not seeking to prevent Phelps from protesting.

Perhaps the protests at specific funerals could be considered a form of harassment or torment. The issue then becomes, do the actions of Phelps et al meet the test with respect to harassment or torment. Does their action contribute to the emotional pain for already grieving folks?

 

[Gokul43201]

Protesting a funeral is a gross violation of 1A rights as it causes harm to the friends and family who are in mourning.

How? What harm was caused (or was capable of being caused) in this case?

It is, however, encroaching on a slippery slope...

In most locales, a permit must be obtained before staging a protest, and permits are often refused on grounds that a protest is likely to create a disturbance of the peace. This sounds like a great time for communities to simply enact and enforce the permitting process.

Permits for protest are exactly the manner in which this form of speech is regulated. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, Westboro Baptist obtained the necessary permits and conducted the protest in accordance with the all the imposed restrictions (i.e., maintaining some minimum distance from the location, dispersing the protest before the funeral started, etc.).

 

[JaredJames]

I think the purpose of Snyder's case is that he wishes to stop Phelps et al from protesting at or near funerals of fallen servicepersons, but he is not seeking to prevent Phelps from protesting.

I've given up arguing here, it is clear that viewpoints are different and I feel there is a responsibility of the government to restrict such vile actions and others believe they should be allowed to do it.

That aside, this is exactly what I've been trying to say. I don't want to stop them protesting, but simply have a system which stops them doing it in an inconsiderate way (around funerals etc).

Yes, people could still be affected, but it isn't directly targetted at an event, especially such an already emotionally charged one.

 

[JaredJames]

How? What harm was caused (or was capable of being caused) in this case?

Imagine your child is killed in combat, you're at their funeral, you see / hear that someone is protesting nearby calling your son a "fag" and saying they deserve to die.

Now, is your reaction:

a) "Ah, that's OK, they have the right permit."
or
b) Anger and/or emotional distress.

Unless you can answer a for the above, you have been harmed by this protest, it has effected you. Whether directly, by witnessing it or indirectly by seeing it on the news.

The argument of "they didn't see the protest" doesn't hold. It was on the news. This argument is the equivelant of saying "you only watched the twin towers fall on tv, you couldn't have a reaction to it".
The fact pretty much everyone in this thread has said they find the actions vile and despicable, clearly shows we have all had a reaction (I'd say emotional) in some way or another. We have all been affected and to say this family can't be harmed by indirectly hearing of the protests just doesn't work. Out of everyone hearing of this protest, given its location and timing, they are the most likely to be emotionally harmed by it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Imagine your child is killed in combat, you're at their funeral, you see / hear that someone is protesting nearby calling your son a "fag" and saying they deserve to die.

Now, is your reaction:

a) "Ah, that's OK, they have the right permit."
or
b) Anger and/or emotional distress.

Unless you can answer a for the above, you have been harmed by this protest, it has effected you. Whether directly, by witnessing it or indirectly by seeing it on the news.

If you are going to ban any protest that evokes "anger and/or emotional distress" as a response (which is in large part the point of a protest - you don't carry out a protest to make people feel good about the state of things), then you might as well ban all protest and stop calling yourself a modern democracy.

You don't think anti-war protests (to pick a common example) cause anger and/or emotional distress?

 

[MathConfusion]

As far as I'm concerned they are constitutionally protected because they aren't causing "physical" harm to anyone. The KKK has every right to put on marches and all that, although they are a hateful group, as long as they don't cause any harm.
As terrible as it is, it's better off they are allowed to do what they do for the sake of all our first amendment rights, because once they start limiting that right, watch it go away REALLY fast.

 

[Gokul43201]

What I find more troubling than the protest itself is the seeming determination of the USSC to abandon all objectivity and try their darndest to find in favor of one particular side (as summarized in the quote below, from the link in the OP):

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia appeared, to varying degrees, to be searching for a way to rule for Snyder.

You don't search for a way to rationalize a predetermined judgment; you make a judgment based on an unbiased search.

 

[Gokul43201]

As far as I'm concerned they are constitutionally protected because they aren't causing "physical" harm to anyone.

Best as I can tell, the only form of harm that is covered by the 'fighting words' limitation is physical injury. Anger and/or emotional distress doesn't make the cut.

 

[JaredJames]

If you are going to ban any protest that evokes "anger and/or emotional distress" as a response (which is in large part the point of a protest - you don't carry out a protest to make people feel good about the state of things), then you might as well ban all protest and stop calling yourself a modern democracy.

You don't think anti-war protests (to pick a common example) cause anger and/or emotional distress?

That aside, this is exactly what I've been trying to say. I don't want to stop them protesting, but simply have a system which stops them doing it in an inconsiderate way (around funerals etc).

Yes, people could still be affected, but it isn't directly targetted at an event, especially such an already emotionally charged one.

I'm fed up of saying this and having people pick and choose segments of my posts, I'm not talking about all protests, I'm talking about ones targeted at people, such as in this case were the funeral is the target.

The example I gave was to demonstrate how harm can be caused by protests, especially ones such as these. The above section I have quoted (plus all previous posts) shows what I feel regarding specific types of protest (aka, open aimed at no persons in particular or targeting specific people).

Regarding harm also, emotional (mental) harm can be just as bad as physical abuse. To differentiate doesn't really work. Emotional or physical bullying aren't separate and can have exactly the same results so far as the victim goes.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm fed up of saying this and having people pick and choose segments of my posts, I'm not talking about all protests, I'm talking about ones targeted at people, such as in this case were the funeral is the target.

I'm definitely not choosing segments of your posts that I find convenient to respond to.

The example I gave was to demonstrate how harm can be caused by protests, especially ones such as these.

To what end? I have shown how similar harm can be caused by any number of protests that even you, perhaps, might find acceptable. Therefore how do you use the "harm argument" to ban some of these protests but not others?

The above section I have quoted (plus all previous posts) shows what I feel regarding specific types of protest (aka, open aimed at no persons in particular or targeting specific people).

What kind of protests are aimed at "no persons in particular"? If at all anyone can make a claim about not targeting a specific person, that would be the Westboro Baptist Church. Their protest is essentially saying that US soldiers are dying because Americans are sinners - it is blaming virtually the entire population of the US. They are about as universal as one can get with protesting, not only in terms of the target audience (the US public), but also in terms of the venues - they've protested at funerals for 9/11 victims, victims of the Sago mine disaster, victims of anti-gay violence, church icons (Jerry Falwell), civil rights icons (Coretta Scott King), TV icons, military persons, ... and they blame all of these deaths on the sinfulness of Americans. You can not make the case that they are singling out a specific person for their protest (even if that were a valid objection).

 

[zomgwtf]

How come states can vote to have no gay marriage but it's a big problem to say we don't want people protesting funerals or about our dead soldiers or increase the buffer zone around funerals etc. etc.?

 

[zomgwtf]

As far as I'm concerned they are constitutionally protected because they aren't causing "physical" harm to anyone. The KKK has every right to put on marches and all that, although they are a hateful group, as long as they don't cause any harm.
As terrible as it is, it's better off they are allowed to do what they do for the sake of all our first amendment rights, because once they start limiting that right, watch it go away REALLY fast.

Bleh.. . Let's not do the American favorite passtime and cling to slippery slopes.

 

[Office_Shredder]

How come states can vote to have no gay marriage but it's a big problem to say we don't want people protesting funerals or about our dead soldiers or increase the buffer zone around funerals etc. etc.?

For the same reason apples aren't oranges. Can you elaborate on this point?