SERVEFollow

Since the SC ruled that that members of the WBC were acting within their rights when protesting at the funerals of fallen military folk, many lawmakers have gone to work to protect the ceremonies. I believe there are more than a couple states that have enacted or are in the process of enacting laws to protect funerals from disruption.

Most recently Senator Snowe (R-Maine) has brough forward a federal bill - the Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act (SERVE).



I have no problem with funerals having some legal protection from disruption, but limiting it to service-people is a stupid-filled slap in the face of equality.

While I do think that the wbc protestors are wrong and assholy, I do agree with the ruling, but only because I don't like to think of what other types of speech might get banned in the future.

Something about a five year old boy in a catalog with pink toe nails.

I'd like to see our Vetrans protected even when dead. Its insulting to have people
protest at a funeral.

This is part of a much lager problem. This whole "What eva, what eva, I do what I want" mentality is hurting the U.S. Your freedom of speech is, or at least should be IMO, the right to disagree or agree to certain things, not to be a douche prick. There are indeed laws preventing people from expressing views and we need to acknowledge that and enforce this in all areas of life.

It sucks, sure, but speech should be protected. Even idiots like WBC.

Counter protests to WBC happen quite often.

They certainly do!


The counterdemos are always far, far funnier too. Do fundie Christians have no sense of humour?



Edited, Apr 15th 2011 3:39am by paulsol

That doesn't make sense to me. If it sucks, then do something about it. We already have laws against certain types of speech. People need to get out of this fantasy thought that we have the right to say whatever we want whenever we want, because we don't.

This goes back to my "identity" argument as before. We, as a nation, try to please everyone instead of just putting our foot down and saying "NO" to certain things. It's quite ok to say "You have the freedom to speak against the government but not protest against a funeral, if you don't like it, then GTFO".

This is exactly what I was talking about. I would argue, if a vote was taken, most people would disagree with the action of the protest, but it's supported due to this pseudo practice of trying to please everyone where what the citizens really want isn't being put in practice.

I can't wait until the wbc gets to the part of the bible that talks about compassion, love, and not judging otherss...talk about your "oh ****" moments.

Elinda has a point, then again so does your counter, hence why I stand by my original statement.

Religious zealots tend to skip over those parts altogether, like varus.