Leading me to believe that some folks "Just need killin.."

[Uncle Briggs]

It's hard not to be on this guy's side...

From the article:

Ryan Newell is "Army to the bone," friends and family say of the decorated military veteran who joined the service at 17, lost both legs in an explosion in Afghanistan and now stands accused of stalking members of a controversial Topeka church.


Read more: Vet faces 5 charges in Westboro incident | Featured Story | Wichita Eagle

[Sun Tzu]

Must...resist...urge...

[CU Tiger]

Officer was just a few minutes early by my calculations.

Now I guess we get to see what kind of Christians these westboro folks are. If they are truly kind, forgiving souls they will conmtact the police and ask that all charges be dropped as they MUST hav foirgiveness in their hearts, right?

[EagleFan]

There needs to be a public collection for that man's defense.

[stevew]

So, it almost seems like we went over the top here in regards to banning free speech.

Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church

Westboro Baptist Church protesters will soon be severely limited in their ability to disrupt military funerals, after Congress passed a sweeping veterans bill this week that includes restrictions on such demonstrations.

According to "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012," which is now headed to President Barack Obama's desk, demonstrators will no longer be allowed to picket military funerals two hours before or after a service. The bill also requires protestors to be at least 300 feet away from grieving family members.

This aspect of the legislation was introduced by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who, at the urging of a teenage constituent, proposed new limitations on military funeral demonstrations as a response to a 2011 Supreme Court case that ruled such actions were protected under the First Amendment.

In the wake of that decision, many have turned to counter-protest efforts to block Westboro Baptist Church's disruptive and insensitive displays, which frequently suggest that U.S. soldiers have been killed as God's vengeance for gay tolerance.

Thousands turned out in Missouri last month, forming a "human wall" around a church where the service for a fallen soldier was being held.

Earlier in July, hundreds of Texas A&M students showed up in a similar effort, joining together to create a barrier between Westboro Baptist Church members and a military funeral.

And while not at a specific service, a group of demonstrators dressed as zombies gathered at a military base in Washington last month, far outnumbering and overshadowing followers of the far-right congregation.

The bill also contains a variety of measures meant to address veterans health, benefits, housing and education. Obama is expected to sign to the legislation later this month.

[sterlingice]

Not a fan. I guess I could see a reasonable distance requirement "Must be more than 100 feet from the deceased at the funeral" but "from grieving family members" seems a problem since they're all mobile. Also, I really don't like the excessively long window "before or after a service part" as a huge limit of free speech.

I don't like Westboro or what they do, but they have the right to do it as long as it's not violating other's rights.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Sounds like people were doing a good job of fighting speech with speech there. No need for Congress to step in. So, of course, they do.

[spleen1015]

I believe is anyone's right to free speech, but I don't have an issue with this.

Protesting at a military funeral is beyond idiotic to me.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Sounds like people were doing a good job of fighting speech with speech there. No need for Congress to step in. So, of course, they do.

I bet there is a shit ton of other bullshit underneath this legislation as well.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Not a fan. I guess I could see a reasonable distance requirement "Must be more than 100 feet from the deceased at the funeral" but "from grieving family members" seems a problem since they're all mobile. Also, I really don't like the excessively long window "before or after a service part" as a huge limit of free speech.

I don't like Westboro or what they do, but they have the right to do it as long as it's not violating other's rights.

SI

I'm with SI here.

[JPhillips]

How do you define military funeral?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by stevew

So, it almost seems like we went over the top here in regards to banning free speech.

Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church

I don't think this DOES "deliver a blow" to WBC, though. For one, their name is in the news, which is one of the things they want in the first place. For another, I can't imagine SCOTUS doesn't overturn this bill eventually.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How do you define military funeral?

Pretty broadly:

"For any funeral of a member or former member of the Armed Forces that is not located at a cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or part of Arlington National Cemetery..."

I guess you could have some grey areas whether someone was ever in the "armed forces" or not, but those disputes are what lawyers are for. But this definitely applies to more than just "military funerals" - it can just be any person that was ever in the armed forces - though westboro tends to target active-duty deaths, I believe.

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by stevew

I bet there is a shit ton of other bullshit underneath this legislation as well.

Big +1. Some intended and a lot of unintended.

[JediKooter]

Looks like the riders have to do with how many plots you can have at Arlington, expansion of presidential memorial certificates and requirements for placement of memorials at Arlington. Seems like those would have been just fine in their own bill.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I don't think this DOES "deliver a blow" to WBC, though. For one, their name is in the news, which is one of the things they want in the first place. For another, I can't imagine SCOTUS doesn't overturn this bill eventually.

Not to mention they protest anywhere and everywhere. Telling them they can't protest in one spot is just tossing a water cup at the fire. They continue to get their name in the news, and I doubt this holds up at all. It's hard for people to accept, but people acting like total asshats is indeed constitutional.

[molson]

I'm sure they tailored it around what the Supreme Court said last time, and while I don't remember how the Court has addressed these factors in these types of cases, this is what the constitution requires as far as time, place, and manner restrictions:

-Be content neutral
-Be narrowly tailored
-Serve a significant governmental interest
-Leave open ample alternative channels for communication

From a quick skim, I think they tried to focus on the narrow tailoring.

[Glengoyne]

I'm not a fan of the pending legislation, but I do like the sentiment behind it.

Didn't some states make burning the flag in public the equivalent of "fighting words", making some limited battery of the perpetrators legal? I'd rather see this go that direction.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm not a fan of the pending legislation, but I do like the sentiment behind it.

Didn't some states make burning the flag in public the equivalent of "fighting words", making some limited battery of the perpetrators legal? I'd rather see this go that direction.

Alito thought that in terms of the Westboro protestors, that them were fighting words not subject to constitutional protections, but the majority said fighting words are really personal, directed towards someone, as opposed to protests like this that are really designed for other people to hear.

Still, if there were some "limited battery" inflicted upon one of these guys, that's be some big-time mitigating factors and maybe outright jury nullification and acquittals. I don't think anyone would be looking at more than a fine or probation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Right, wrong, otherwise ... I can't see any way possible this withstands a constitutional challenge in court.

[Drake]

Back when abortion clinic protests were all the rage, I seem to remember there being legislation that moved those protestors back a certain number of feet from the entrance and set stipulations on ways they could communicate with people seeking services. Did those survive SCOTUS challenges?

(I have to admit that I never really gave a shit about the abortion stuff, probably because my parents gave such a huge shit.)

It could be that there weren't any federal laws like this at all. So much religious propaganda when I was a kid.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Sounds like people were doing a good job of fighting speech with speech there. No need for Congress to step in. So, of course, they do.

Next up during the election year - the "anti-murder" law!