Goodbye, Westboro. Won't miss you a bit

[Brian22]

I'm all about the 1st amendment, but since we're in the USSA anyway, I can get behind this:


President Barack Obama signs the “Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012,” in the Oval Office, Aug. 6, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

This afternoon, President Obama signed legislation that takes two important steps to help fulfill our nation's obligations to our veterans and their families.
First, the new law offers extended care to a group of servicemembers who were based at Camp Lejeune with their families during a period when contaminated water caused major medical issues for a number of individuals.

Among those standing with the President at today's bill signing were Jerry Ensminger, a Marine Corps veteran who has been an advocate for affected families, and Mike Partain, who was born at Camp Lejuene and later developed male breast cancer. The bill the President signed was named after Janey Ensminger, the Master Sargeant's daughter who passed away from leukemia at age nine.

Second, the law prohibits protests at military funerals in the two hours immediately prior to and following a military funeral -- a measure, the President said, that will ensure that our servicemembers get laid to rest with "the utmost honor and respect."

President Obama upheld this bill as an example of the type of issue on which Republicans and Democrats can find common ground, and he pushed lawmakers to take action on other measures to aid veterans -- including his proposal for a Veterans Jobs Corps.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/08/06/president-obama-signs-honoring-americas-veterans-and-caring-camp-lejeune-families-ac

 

[Sks985]

Finally!!!

 

[Spent Brass]

Nice to see this happen. Now how long till the SCOTUS sends this the way of stolen valor?

 

[CEHollier]

When Brian Chism was killed in Afghanistan there was a funeral here in Ascension Parish. Family, friends, and patriot guard riders were ready for the Westboro Baptist Church group. They did not show up. Good for them because Louisianians don't tolerate disrespect of our military dead.

 

[MikeR]

While I dislike those morons & would probably kick their asses if they showed up at a service member's funeral that I was attending...

I cannot get behind the government restricting when/where citizens are allowed to assemble. I didn't join the military so the government can strip rights from the citizens (regardless of if I think they are worthless POSs).

 

[Sugarbug]

Glad to see this happen.

I've never been so disgusted by people claiming first amendment rights as I have been with WBC.

 

[Gator 45/70]

I agree...As much as some would like to kick their tail's...Who's next to be banned from the right to assemble..?

While I dislike those morons & would probably kick their asses if they showed up at a service member's funeral that I was attending...

I cannot get behind the government restricting when/where citizens are allowed to assemble. I didn't join the military so the government can strip rights from the citizens (regardless of if I think they are worthless POSs).

 

[Gus McCrae]

I agree...As much as some would like to kick their tail's...Who's next to be banned from the right to assemble..?

As much as I dislike that church, this is correct. They should regulate the demonstration and make them protest two miles away from the funeral, but not ban the time. Otherwise, Mr. Nikita might have been right.

 

[Cochise]

It is always wonderful to see our fallen hero's get the respect they deserve, but this is a very slippery slope.
The government suspending or infringing the 1st amendment rights of any group (even a group of ass hats) is not something that should be condoned.

 

[Gus McCrae]

So..... is anyone going to say "Good Job Obama" on this one?

 

[Just A Number]

As odious as WBC's actions are in an ethical sense...this is crap law and should never have been passed. Not only is this a reprehensible infringement; it is also a display of the ineptitude of our government indicative of the slow, wasteful, bumbling, bureaucratic, behind the curve, bullshittery we all know and love. These clowns have pretty much faded from the Country's thought process, and in typical a day late and a dollar short fashion the head wonks in charge try to impliment regulation to a problem that doesn't really exist anymore because the Citizenry has policed the issue themselves.

...of course the thin end of the wedge is in.

 

[Hitman]

Well sometimes COMMON sense has to prevail. Thank God

plus...

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Does this look like peaceful assembly?

What about to a mother who's just lost her baby in a combat zone thousands of miles away?
or a father who's burying his son?

Sorry guys, I'll have to disagree.

Sometimes common sense has to prevail and honor has to be restored.

 

[Gator 45/70]

Now if ''The Manchurian Candidate'' had said ...Automatic presidential immunity for anyone kicking Westboro's member's ass protesting a military funeral...He may of had something there...

 

[JBE]

I wonder if he signed it knowing that it will not hold up if it's brought to the current liberal-minded SCOTUS?

You know Westboro will contest this as a 1A issue...

We'll see....

Why did he wait until an election year to do this when Westoboro has been protesting military funerals since he took office?

Another shameless attempt at vote-garnering...

Sometimes the right thing to do isn't alway done for the right reasons....

 

[whitsend]

Well sometimes COMMON sense has to prevail. Thank God

plus...




Does this look like peaceful assembly?



What about to a mother who's just lost her baby in a combat zone thousands of miles away?
or a father who's burying his son?

Sorry guys, I'll have to disagree.

Sometimes common sense has to prevail and honor has to be restored.

Yes it looks peaceful to me.
While I abhor what they do and how they represent God, I haven't heard of them being violent and physically attacking anyone.
If you can take away their 1st amendment right because your don't agree with them, what is to stop someone from taking away our 2nd amendment right because they don't agree with us?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I feel for the families of the soldiers, and I wish I had a solution, but I don't think we should just take away peoples rights.

The problem is some people don't have common sense, common courtesy, or respect for others, but they still have rights.

JMHO.

 

[MikeR]

The problem is, if the liberal SC "get in line" with the agenda and approve, this sets a precident for stripping rights from other "unsavory" groups. Currently, the Tea Party is the biggest "unsavory" group to the current admin (although the core is law abiding, good citizens), while the Occupy group is favorable (regardless of the crime & destruction their "events" bring).

 

[Hitman]

If you can take away their 1st amendment right because your don't agree with them, what is to stop someone from taking away our 2nd amendment right because they don't agree with us?
.

I know what you're saying. I do. However they are allowed to protest and assemble. Just not 2 hours before or after a Military Funeral.

Just because they aren't throwing punches doesn't mean they aren't causing harm. Never before has physical violence been the only exclusive measure to determine harm done.

Dancing on the grave of a dead service member is one thing. Doing so while they are burying him/her in front of his/her children, spouse, parents is another. I believe that is the line, and I believe that line has been defined with this law.


It states specifically that *protests must be held at least 300 feet from military funerals and are prohibited two hours before or after a service.*

I understand the fear here, but I sure didn't see any protest for this NOT to be signed.

 

[Cochise]

I understand what you are saying Hitman, but the 1st guarantees us all the right to assemble and/or protest peacefully anywhere and at any time. The reason no politicians are speaking against this is because no one wants to be the "bad guy" on this issue in an election year. They probably assume that the SCOTUS will overturn this, anyway.

This is not something the government needs to (or has a right to) do anything about. What needs to happen in cases like this is a group of "private citizens" needs to man up and give the demonstrators a physical lesson in common courtesy.
And when I say man up, I mean prepare for and accept the negative consequences of doing what you think is right. Just so there is no confusion.

 

[Hitman]

I understand what you are saying Hitman, but the 1st guarantees us all the right to assemble and/or protest peacefully anywhere and at any time. The reason no politicians are speaking against this is because no one wants to be the "bad guy" on this issue in an election year. They probably assume that the SCOTUS will overturn this, anyway.

This is not something the government needs to (or has a right to) do anything about. What needs to happen in cases like this is a group of "private citizens" needs to man up and give the demonstrators a physical lesson in common courtesy.
And when I say man up, I mean prepare for and accept the negative consequences of doing what you think is right. Just so there is no confusion.

True and something I've mentioned here before. WBC has the right to say what they want, but they should be prepared to be responsible for those words and whatever comes of it.

I still think the argument could be made when dealing with what is 'Peaceful assembly' and that not specifically meaning actual physical violence.

Also note in the wake of recent events,
I’d like to thank everyone NOW for being PEACEFUL in this thread

 

[Leonidas]

I understand what you are saying Hitman, but the 1st guarantees us all the right to assemble and/or protest peacefully anywhere and at any time. The reason no politicians are speaking against this is because no one wants to be the "bad guy" on this issue in an election year. They probably assume that the SCOTUS will overturn this, anyway.

This is not something the government needs to (or has a right to) do anything about. What needs to happen in cases like this is a group of "private citizens" needs to man up and give the demonstrators a physical lesson in common courtesy.
And when I say man up, I mean prepare for and accept the negative consequences of doing what you think is right. Just so there is no confusion.

Civil disobedience has a long tradition in America. Better clarify. I am agreeing with your final paragraph.