Reaction to N.C. Session Law 2006-169 (Congress, soldiers, free speech)

[Amaznjohn]

This law was designed to prohibit the WBC members from protesting at the funerals of fallen soldiers. I would like to hear some arguments for and against. Personally, I think that this law will be ruled unconstitutional because it violates the protesters' rights to free speech.

[spunky1]

I'm lost, in my world WBC means white blood cells. What does it stand for in your world?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

This law was designed to prohibit the WBC members from protesting at the funerals of fallen soldiers. I would like to hear some arguments for and against. Personally, I think that this law will be ruled unconstitutional because it violates the protesters' rights to free speech.

Is this the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act? That prohibits demonstration within a specified distance. It's a tough call Constitutionally. While it would surely be a horrid thing to protest at a funeral can we really legislate consideration, common sense, and good taste? With the Patriot Riders and I'd guess other attendants at military funerals I don't think protest would last long, maybe we should just let the chips fall where they may.

I think it can set a dangerous precedent too. I Emailed my Congressman and asked what next? A Respect for an Incompetent President Act? This apparently concerned his staff enough to rate a phone call from one of his aides.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by spunky1

I'm lost, in my world WBC means white blood cells. What does it stand for in your world?

Westboro Baptist Church

[crashcop]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

This law was designed to prohibit the WBC members from protesting at the funerals of fallen soldiers. I would like to hear some arguments for and against. Personally, I think that this law will be ruled unconstitutional because it violates the protesters' rights to free speech.

First the Rev Phelps is an idiot. The ban by most states will be upheld by this sitting Supreme Court. The ban regulates the area and distant of their rally. It does not stop the right for them to have the rally. This has been held constitutionally acceptable in prior cases.

Personally I wish a few family members would make it usafe for the Phelps idiots to be near the funeral. Or how about an anti WBC rally in Topeka every Sunday.....

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by gvcop32

First the Rev Phelps is an idiot. The ban by most states will be upheld by this sitting Supreme Court. The ban regulates the area and distant of their rally. It does not stop the right for them to have the rally. This has been held constitutionally acceptable in prior cases.

Personally I wish a few family members would make it usafe for the Phelps idiots to be near the funeral. Or how about an anti WBC rally in Topeka every Sunday.....

I like your last suggestion. However, threatening or assaulting any citizen for protesting should be prohibited. By banning places and times that citizens cannot protest on public property is, in effect, extinguishing their right to free speech. For example, if people weren't allow to protest the President's policy while he attended a local event, but only before or after he arrived, what would be the point in protesting at all?