http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/10/16/8th-circuit-court-upholds-funeral-protest-law Comments On: 8th Circuit Court upholds funeral protest law by Max Brantley en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Wed, 22 May 2013 10:15:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
They can protest anywhere they want. The towns, counties, and cities are certainly big enough. You talk about the rights of free speech but what about a person's right to bury their dead in peace?
Posted by Carrie Pierce]]> Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:14:11 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by SkyPilot]]> Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:42:20 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by plainjim]]> Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:34:27 -0500 Arkansas Times
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/j…

And while FBC long ago left the southern coalition, it is proof that Sky Pilot's point that not all Baptists are the same is entirely correct.
Posted by Vanessa]]> Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:58:16 -0500 Arkansas Times
And you're right: It doesn't do any good to have free speech to protest the king if you are kept twenty miles from the palace.

What I'd like is not an absolute either-or situation, but some middle-ground accommodation. But if you have to accommodate, then it may not truly be "free speech." It's a knotty problem with no simple solution.

The thing is, when I think of free speech, I think of reasoned discourse as practiced in my class rooms and in the Greek assemblies and the Roman senate, and as intended to be practiced in our legislative halls and our places of public assembly.

To me, the notion of free speech is stretched beyond reason when a boistrous and unruly mob has the right to disrupt the peace and solace of a grieving group with lies, calumny, and crude shouts. Shouting "God hates fags" at funeral mourners goes beyond the bounds of civil discourse or socially responsible behavior. And while I'm in favor of upholding the right of free speech, I condemn its unseemly, abusive, insulting, offensive, practice intended to insult decent people and injure their emotional sensibilities. It's called adding insult to injury. And while freedom of speech is a treasured American right, adding insult to injury is hardly an approved American practice.

To me, along with freedom goes responsibility. I'm willing to defend Westboro's freedom to speak--and did so with my stint of military service. But I'm unwilling to defend its practice of that freedom when it adds insult to injury and intentionally inflicts pain on other human beings.

There is no good thing that cannot be abused. I am in favor of the good of free speech. I am appalled at its abuse. And I think we should be able to find reasonable ways to curb the abuse without losing the freedom.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." But it does not say that Westboro Baptist Church has the right to impose its free speech upon the unwilling participants in someone's funeral.

The First Amendment does NOT say that you have the right to say whatever you want to say where ever and when ever you want to say it! And I think we need some reasonable protections for the hearers--especially unwilling hearers--as well as for the speakers
Posted by SkyPilot]]> Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:34:38 -0500 Arkansas Times
Westboro funeral protests surely test our will to protect and preserve truly free speech. I detest what those folks do, but I don't detest their right to do it. Because if the Westboros of America have their voices silenced, who will be next? You? Me?

We can already see examples of political speech being silenced- protesters forced to stay so far away from convention sites as to make their protests essentially meaningless, for example. Not because their free speech is a threat to society, but because it is inconvenient or distasteful to those wanting to hold conventions and the like in a sterile, non-confrontational environment.

At some point we have to stand up and say: "I abhor what you are saying, but I will defend with all my might your right to say it."

For my part I much prefer the public simply ignore the Westboro voices. Easy? Of course not. The best defense may be a silent offense- standing with our backs to them and shunning them and their abhorrent, but free, speech. Wordless free speech.
Posted by Sound Policy]]> Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:33:15 -0500 Arkansas Times
If the right of your fist stops at the end of my nose, it might also be that your right to exercise free speech stops where the sound reaches my ear.

If there is protection for the speaker, is there no protection for the hearer whose space has been invaded?

Why must one person be forced to be exposed to the free speech of another which he has no desire to hear?

If one is in a public place making a speech, anyone who does not wish to hear can remove from the place.

When one is conducting a funeral at a designated location, does another person's right of free speech also afford him the right to deliver his speech in an unwanted location?

Is it the right of free speech that is at stake, or the right of selecting the location?

Seems to me the court has protected the right of free speech, but not the right of intrusion.

You have freedom of movement, but not into my house if I don't want you there.

You have the freedom of expression, but not necessarily to impose it upon me against my will when I am occupying a designated place.

Personally, I think the court has done a pretty good job in this case.

If Westboro wants to demonstrate, let them demonstrate on their property in Topeka.

If they want to demonstrate elsewhere, let them get a permit to demonstrate in a public park or at a public building.

It may be just my opinion, but I see no expression of Christian love, compassion, or concern in inflicting hate and hateful messages upon grieving families.
Posted by SkyPilot]]> Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:06:29 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by Cato]]> Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:47:51 -0500 Arkansas Times
Here is our chance to prove it.

Speech is protected only if dispicable speech is protected.

The "right" to praise the king has never been in jeopardy.

Do we give up our Constitutional rights as long as they are only infringed for short times and short distances? Do we not see that 300 feet can EASILY be expanded to 300 miles once the camel's nose is inside the tent?

Why is 1 hour of lack of freedom of speech not easily expanded to 1 day or 1 year or 1 .....?

Westboro BAPTIST Church is not evidence of a weakness in our CITZEN'S rights, it is a proof of the strength of CITZEN'S rights.

Westboro BAPTIST Church should be free to spew their ignorant hate, that is the only way for reasoned citizens to be aware they are ignorant and hateful. It is up to the BAPTISTS to shout them down.
Posted by Citizen1]]> Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:44:04 -0500 Arkansas Times