Forums | MacLife

Just making sure... you mentioned 'service men' in your post.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Although no member of the group ever met McLean, they claim he lived an immoral and godless life, just like all other Canadians.

:stands:

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

If you were in Canada right now, you'd realize that you are paralleling a lame Bombarier TV ad.

And if they are protesting on public property and not hindering access to the funeral?

Look, I'm not saying that I approve of this sort of behavior. I find it reprehensible. But, can it really be legally stopped if we also believe in free speech?

If it can be, why hasn't it?

Tallgeese wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

And if they are protesting on public property and not hindering access to the funeral?

Look, I'm not saying that I approve of this sort of behavior. I find it reprehensible. But, can it really be legally stopped if we also believe in free speech?

If it can be, why hasn't it?

1. Most funerals are on private property
2. Congress has outlawed these guys from protesting military funerals
2a. because Congress hates fags, too. That's why they never cared before.

1. There are usually sidewalks and streets near to churches and funeral homes.

2. They have? Have there been court challenges?

2a.

Tallgeese wrote:

1. You can be on the sidewalk near my house and still be guilty of disturbing my peace
2. Evan Bayh wrote it. "Dignity for Military Funerals Act of 2006". And not to my knowledge.

Not if I'm silently standing there with a sign. Although that would be creepy.

That was my plan, but I was stopped at the border.

Not welcome in Canada?  Let's be frank, they're not really welcome anywhere.

They are - just BARELY - tolerated in the US because they have somehow managed to get their hateful drivel classified as free speech. 

...which I suppose it is. 

Hank Rearden wrote:

Which amendment to the Constitution guarantees this right?

I don't think the constitution or any amendment specifically guarantee it, but they don't need to - you can have free speech without needing to be an ass at someones funeral. No one is stopping them from saying what they want to say - it's when the location of where they want to say it is provocative and hateful to those mourning their dead that it is a problem.

Hank Rearden wrote:

test wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

Protest plans are not - of themselves - criminal.

I'm pretty sure conspiracy to commit an indignity to a dead body is crime.

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that indignities on a dead body include actual physical "assaults" on the body. Simply saying something about the person's body - I'd guess - doesn't measure up (down?) to that standard.

It measures up because I say it does.

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

you best shepardize

zeitgeist wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

:: Mentions "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" notion ::

Somewhat different from shouting 'fag!' in a crowded cemetary.

(Please excuse the use.)

Not in this context. It was an extremely high-profile killing; a huge number of people felt it very deeply. The response to a Phelpsization of it could be truly explosive.

Though I agree with those who have said it's the Phelpsers who are at greatest risk.