Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF From The Advocate: Protesters wouldn't be able to gather outside a funeral under a bill a bipartisan group of Wisconsin lawmakers proposed Wednesday. The bill is designed to stop members of a Kansas-based church who have protested outside the funerals and visitations of about 80 soldiers nationwide, including three in Wisconsin. The church, led by the Reverend Fred Phelps, believes God is killing American soldiers because the United States accepts homosexuality. The bill would prohibit protests within 500 feet of a funeral, wake, internment, or memorial service for an hour before and after the ceremony. Republican senator Ron Brown, chairman of the senate veterans committee, and Democratic senator Russ Decker, two of the bill's supporters in the senate, said they think the measure balances mourners' right to privacy with the right to free speech. "It's unfortunate but necessary we take these steps," Decker said. Protesters who violate the bill's conditions would face a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine. A second violation would be a felony offense, punishable by up to 3 1/2 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. (AP)
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Phelps should be barred from getting out of bed each morning.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Fred Phelps is a heretic and no Christian. As a Christian, I deny him as one of my own.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Fred Phelps in due time will become even more insignificant then he already his. He's not worth the time or effort.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I hear ya DD, but just the same, it always feels good to deliver those kind of kicks to those that deserve it.
Originally Posted By JeffG I think Phelps is absolutely evil and that his approach to protests is about as low as you can possibly go. My first instinct is also to immediately agree with any law that would put a stop to Phelps. At the same time, though, I can't help but think that this law is a violation of the First Amendment and probably will ultimately deemed unconstitutional. -Jeff
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF ^^^ How can it be a violation of the First Amendment? Phelps wouldn't be silenced; he just can't be within 500 ft. of the proceedings for a specific period of time. It doesn't say he can't have his protests or say whatever the hell he wants.
Originally Posted By FaMulan He will just be forced to show the proper respect near the funeral of a lost son, daughter, mother, father, brother, sister, aunt or uncle. His disruption of funerals runs contrary to the idea of "Christain Decency".
Originally Posted By JeffG I don't really disagree that strongly, but I just can't help but feel a bit uncomfortable whenever restrictions are placed on the ability to hold protests on public property, even when the intentions are clearly noble. Let's keep in mind that the point of this law is essentially to prevent the protests from being seen by the people very people targeted by them. While I can think of few protests more abominable than these, it still strikes me as a dangerous precedent. To give a different type of example, we've already seen attempts by the federal government to restrict the ability of protesters to assemble anywhere that President Bush can actually see and hear them. My fear is that this Wisconsin law, if upheld, could help to strengthen that type of restriction whenver the courts inevitably end up addressing them. I see this as another case somewhat similar to the Skokie Nazi or Larry Flynt cases. For freedom of speech to truly exist, it has to protect even some of the most vile speech. -Jeff
Originally Posted By woody I clearly think this is unConstitutional. A violation of the First Amendment. 500 feet is way too long of a distance. It is extreme. Is this an example of killing Free Speech for political correctness? Yes, I think so. Nonetheless, if you don't like something, more is needed, not less. Why not allow Phelps to self-destruct?
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Or, let the people at the funerals do whatever they want to him? If he gets punched in the face, who would stop that?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By bboisvert Re 17: You forgot to call someone a moonbat. That's my favorite. It's like a made up word, but it's so funny and silly I just love it.
Originally Posted By woody >>So, woody, you think that Phelps is a good man and that he's correct. You rabid-right wingers only win elections by preaching hate. It's truly sad.<< You're ridiculous. I said the First Amendment should not be restricted for anyone who have a point of view. Why not outlaw left wing views within 500 feet of ear-shot? I suppose I'll feel better. You omitted the most important sentence. "Why not allow Phelps to self-destruct?" cmpaley: You should learn how to read before you break a vein.
