No protest zone for Phelps

[Jack]

The Michigan state House passed a bill prohibiting protests from taking place within 500 feet of funerals. The legislation is aimed at the Rev. Fred Phelps and members of his Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., who have protested at military funerals around the nation, the Detroit Free Press reported. The group`s chants and signs say the deaths of soldiers killed in Iraq are God`s vengeance for acceptance of homosexuality, promiscuity and adultery in the United States. Phelps` group has appeared at dozens of military funerals. Besides Michigan, 29 other states have proposed similar legislation restricting protests at funerals, the National Conference of State Legislatures said. Although the bills passed 102-1 on Tuesday, one lawmaker warned that they will invite a constitutional court challenge because of free-speech concerns. 'The 500-feet standard has never been upheld anywhere,' said Rep. Leon Drolet, R-Clinton Township. 'I`m afraid this kind of legislation is going to be found unconstitutional.'

Source

I'm sure it will be challenged, but is it really any different than the "free speech zones" that the White House have established in the past?

We all know free speech isn't absolute. In view of that, and in light of my personal feelings about Phelps and his clan, I think this is a bill I could support.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm sure it will be challenged, but is it really any different than the "free speech zones" that the White House have established in the past? We all know free speech isn't absolute. In view of that, and in light of my personal feelings about Phelps and his clan, I think this is a bill I could support.

I think maybe telling them that funerals aren't appropriate protest zones is a good idea. These folks need some therapy...

[Osborn F Enready]

Phelps is a madman acting out in a strange way.

I question his true motivation.

Could it be that he is doing this simply because his religion believes free speech should be limited, and that by being as offensive and vile as possible he is playing off American reactions, knowing the sheeple would support free speech limitations in ONLY this type of form. (though we know, once they regulate free speech in one area, they will eventually regulate free speech in ALL AREAS.)

I smell a rotten, 3 day old fish that has been on the rocks in the sun on the beach of the East River, in July heat.


I don't,and never could support Phelps...

but regulating free speech as a reaction.....

is like making Moussauoi a martyr with the death penalty......

self damaging in the long run, and not even senseless in the SHORT run.

[brien]

Quote by: Isherwood Source I'm sure it will be challenged, but is it really any different than the "free speech zones" that the White House have established in the past? We all know free speech isn't absolute. In view of that, and in light of my personal feelings about Phelps and his clan, I think this is a bill I could support.

I don't advocate the following but it may happen.

When Phelps, and his likes, get a real solid pounding from funeral members then they might think twice about what they are doing around funerals and respect for the dead..

Recently the President of the Hell's Angels in Connecticut was murdered and he was a Viet Nam Vet. I dare Phelps and his crowd to come around and protest anything within sight of that funeral. We would probably see the last of Mr Phelps.

[Monica]

Could it be that he is doing this simply because his religion believes free speech should be limited, and that by being as offensive and vile as possible he is playing off American reactions, knowing the sheeple would support free speech limitations in ONLY this type of form. (though we know, once they regulate free speech in one area, they will eventually regulate free speech in ALL AREAS.)

I won't venture a guess as to his religious beliefs as they are clearly above my head, but I am from Kansas, so my local rag covers Phelps often. According to Phelps, this bill is precisely what he has been after, and he does intend to fight it based on its unconstitutionality.

Regulating free speech is a slippery slope; the next thing you know states will require their residents to carry health insurance or require that Intelligent Design be taught in Science class. These moral issues are something I just don’t want to discuss with my government.

[brien]

Quote by: Monica I won't venture a guess as to his religious beliefs as they are clearly above my head, but I am from Kansas, so my local rag covers Phelps often. According to Phelps, this bill is precisely what he has been after, and he does intend to fight it based on its unconstitutionality. Regulating free speech is a slippery slope; the next thing you know states will require their residents to carry health insurance or require that Intelligent Design be taught in Science class. These moral issues are something I just don’t want to discuss with my government.

Monica. Welcome. Just a poi. Massachusetts already requires mandatory health care and ID has been trying to force its way into the southern schools for some time now.


I fully agree with you but this stuff is happening and it is only through the vigilance of people like us that will stop it. As far as Mass, l leave it to Teddy Boy and their likes. One can't deny that we as Americans, at some point have to address Universal Health Care, but this has been debated for years. The politicians simply fiddle while Rome burns.

Sooner or later, probably sooner, the whole health care system in America will be over run by people who have no insurance. Right now, those of us who pay $1000 per month to carry private health insurance are already carrying those who show up at the hospitals with no insurance. It is factored into our premiums. And Unions have the temerity to strike when their members are asked to contribute $50 per month for their health care which many carry to the grave.

Not saying Mass is correct in its approach, but America will need to address the issue of Universal Health Care sooner rather than later.

AS for ID, I have no problem teaching it in the schools as an elective, right along side of a bible class, as an elective, but to mandate its teaching is both irresponsible and unconstitutional.

[Monica]

Quote by: brien Monica. Welcome. Just a poi. Massachusetts already requires mandatory health care and ID has been trying to force its way into the southern schools for some time now. .... AS for ID, I have no problem teaching it in the schools as an elective, right along side of a bible class, as an elective, but to mandate its teaching is both irresponsible and unconstitutional.

I was being sarcastic. I am up on the Massachusetts bullshit. As for Intelligent Design, it is in fact already mandated as Science curriculum in Kansas. My sarcasm is twofold.

Thanks for the welcome. I have been reading here for some time.

[brien]

Quote by: Monica I was being sarcastic. I am up on the Massachusetts bullshit. As for Intelligent Design, it is in fact already mandated as Science curriculum in Kansas. My sarcasm is twofold. Thanks for the welcome. I have been reading here for some time.

Please post more often as we always welcome new ideas and intelligent people, if I may be so bold as to speak for my fellow posters. :)