PDA

View Full Version : Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Funeral Protests



Teh One Who Knocks
08-07-2012, 02:27 PM
The Huffington Post | By Nick Wing


President Barack Obama signed the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 into law on Monday, providing a wide-ranging package of benefits to military personnel and enacting new restrictions on protests of service member funerals.

"We have a moral sacred duty to our men and women in uniform," Obama said before signing the bill, according to a pool report. "The graves of our veterans are hallowed grounds."

The new law will have strong implications for the Westboro Baptist Church, a Kansas-based organization which the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have labeled a hate group. Westboro Baptist Church has drawn media attention for its brand of protest, which frequently links the deaths of soldiers to America's growing acceptance of gays.

Under the new legislation, protests must be held at least 300 feet from military funerals and are prohibited two hours before or after a service. The law counters a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which found that displays such as Westboro's were protected under the First Amendment.

Members of the church responded defiantly to a Huffington Post report following Congress' passage of the bill, claiming that the law's restrictions could also have an effect on counter-demonstrations organized in response to Westboro's attempts to disrupt military services.

Two of these counter-efforts drew national attention last month, when large groups of people turned out in both Missouri and in Texas in an attempt to create "human walls" to shield attendees of military funerals from Westboro's demonstrations.

In an interview over the weekend, Westboro spokesman Steven Drain told CNN that the new law was "not going to change our plans at all."

According to the Army Times, future violations of The Honoring America’s Veterans Act would include the possibility of $50,000 in statutory damages.

Acid Trip
08-07-2012, 02:47 PM
As much as I hate the demonstrations this is wrong.

Free Speech with limitations is no longer free speech.

Teh One Who Knocks
08-09-2012, 09:47 PM
By Gabe Rottman, Special to CNN


http://i.imgur.com/8HHzj.jpg

Editor's note: Gabe Rottman is a legislative counsel and policy adviser with the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

(CNN) -- When men and women enlist in the military, they take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, including the First Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirm that they will "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

That oath is betrayed by legislation that sneaked through the House of Representatives last week and was signed into law by the president Monday.

Known as the "Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act," it passed as a small piece of an otherwise unexceptional omnibus veterans' bill. It would broadly expand existing restrictions on political protest on public land near military funerals. Notably, the ACLU of Eastern Missouri is actively litigating against similar state legislation that is far narrower in some respects.

Protests cannot be held within 300 feet of the cemetery, and the law bans conduct that blocks someone from entering or leaving the cemetery within a 500-foot radius. Protests are prohibited two hours before the funeral through two hours afterward. It similarly expands restrictions on protests at government cemeteries and gives people injured by the protest a right to sue.

Although it covers all protests near military funerals, the law is targeted, at the Westboro Baptist Church, and that's a First Amendment problem in and of itself. Its members believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the attendant casualties, are divine punishment for America's acceptance of lesbian and gay rights. They protest outside military funerals to publicize their beliefs -- holding signs that say "Pray for More Dead Soldiers" and "God Killed Your Sons" -- but do not cause any disruption of the funeral proper.

Now, as repellent as these protests are, they are a permissible exercise of the freedom of speech. If the First Amendment means anything, it's that the government cannot target a group for censorship because it disagrees with the group's message. This legislation does exactly that.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, introduced the bill a month after the Supreme Court ruled in Snyder v. Phelps that, as lawful speech on a public issue, Westboro Baptist Church protests warranted the highest protection of the First Amendment against state tort claims.

But the imprudence of this legislation goes further. Part of the public reaction to Westboro Baptist protests, as happens with much unpopular political speech, are counterprotests. Those would likely be barred as well by the expanded law, under its "tendency to disrupt" language. If the counterprotests are immune from the law's reach because the government agrees with their message, the law will be doubly unconstitutional.

The issues raised by this new law are a lot like those in the dust-up after Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy spoke out against same-sex marriage. I agree that Chick-fil-A shouldn't be celebrated as some sort of free speech hero, and if you choose not to indulge in a Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich in protest of intolerance, more power to you.

But I'm more concerned by the suggestion of a Chicago alderman that he would go so far as to block a local Chick-fil-A franchise's building permit simply because of Cathy's views, rather than any discriminatory policy of the chain. In some ways, a willingness to ignore the law to shut down someone with whom you simply disagree is worse than Cathy spouting off against marriage equality.

Part of living in America means putting up with words with which you not only disagree but that offend deeply. This is especially true when, as in the Westboro Baptist Church case, the words actually carry a political message.

The expansiveness of the new law violates this core principle. It isn't about protecting the solemnity of a soldier's funeral; that's already fully protected under existing trespass, private property and disorderly conduct laws. It's about censoring unpopular speech. That is inconsistent with the law, the Constitution and the military's oath to the Constitution.

Hal-9000
08-09-2012, 11:20 PM
screw the amendment...if my relative or friend was a vet and someone interrupted his funeral with that particular brand of horseshit, I would seriously start hitting each protestor until they either left the area or hit the ground...


being the pacifist that I am...:oops:

PorkChopSandwiches
08-09-2012, 11:36 PM
Free speach is one thing. They have plenty of hate laws all ready this is just part of that to me. I hate this group

Muddy
08-09-2012, 11:43 PM
They still have free speech.. Just not during the middle of a funeral at the grave site..

Southern Belle
08-10-2012, 02:09 AM
I honestly don't understand the Westboro bunch and what they're demonstrating for or against. But it's their right to free speech even if it's in the poorest of taste. The counterprotest by forming a human wall between them and the funeral is very touching.

deebakes
08-12-2012, 01:59 PM
he finally did something useful? :shock:

FBD
08-12-2012, 03:11 PM
restricting free speech useful?

fksakes. just let the families deal with westboro as they see fit, human shields, beatings, whatever.

deebakes
08-12-2012, 03:14 PM
:lolwut: