At what point does a right to free speech and free religion...?

Question

...become a right to assault your neighbor?

I will give you the Phelps clan as an example. We have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to assemble peacefully. Does showing up at a funeral, and screaming at the mourners that the deceased is going to hell constitute a peaceful assembly? What about the mourners? Are they enjoying a right to peaceful assembly, or is it being interfered with? What about the mourner's rights to exercise thier own freedom of religion? Would it be free speech if the Phelp's were standing accross the street with signs saying that war is wrong, but not interfering with the service? Do our lawmakers need to do a better job of defining when it is free speech, and when it is intentional assault / harrassment /stalking? At what point does the line need to be drawn?
When it interferes with other's rights to peaceful assembly, or worship? When it can be shown that the interference is intentional, and purposely designed to interfere?

What should be done about it?

For those of you who don't live in the states, the Phelp's clan shows up at military funerals, specifically, and screams at the mourners that the deseased is going to hell, and so are they for allowing the deceased to go to Iraq, instead of taking thier protest to the White House...

Preacher: Good point that the Judicial branch is the one that interprets the law, but what if the law is incomplete, needs to be expanded on before they can interpret it? I heard a story recently about a judge interpreting a way outdated law that categorizes adultery as a felony crime... It was a law that hadn't been enforced in years, but someone was trying to press a point, and he had to keep his interpretation in line with the constitution, but also within the parameters of the law the way it was written...

Dink: unfortunately, the mourners don't have choice whether to listen or not, the Phelp's screaming is directed at them personally, and not at the government, even though it is really meant for the government, and it disrupts the service. So the question is, is this sort of behavior freedom of speech, or a personal assault of the mourners? Does it make a difference if it is invading the mourner's air space, or if they are protesting without interfering in the service? And should it be protected as a right, and under what circumstances?

Deckape: I as well wonder what would happen if every mourner they ever treated that way should show up at Fred Phelp's funeral, and treat them the same way...

Snout: interesting point of view from an outside observer...

jtm, I am not sure you quite understand what I am asking, and also curious what country you are living in? I am not saying it is or isn't, I am asking "Is it?"***
Freedom of speach means that you have the right to say something against anybody"s doing while in the government holding such position but you have no right to say bad words to destroy the personality of anybody. That is on his private life.
**** But the Phelp's are saying and doing things to destroy other people's personalities, when thier real target is the government. They are taking it out on innocent people, during private moments in thier private lives and getting away with it by saying it is protected free speech. Is it free speech, or are they just assaulting the mourners?******
Freedom of rteligion means you have the right to choose your own religion., The government will not interfere with you.
****but they are using this right not to be interfered with to terrorize others, is it freedom of religion, or assault?***

Freedom of religious assembly means grouping yourselves to assemble in one place for the purpose of the funeral of someb ody who was dead and to attend the wake on a dead man.
*******agreed. But the Phelp's are basically staging a protest of the government, intefering with someone elses funeral, where they are enjoying thier right to freedom of religious assembly, but using freedom of religious assembly to justify thier right to be there even though it is really a political protest, and they are interfering with others who do have a right to thier religious assembly at a funeral***

Gabriel: I'm gonna have to read yours over a few times :) You are correct, the Phelp's are also harrasing Gay people in a big way, and the military funerals are getting way more attention than the aid's funerals in this country....(it wasn't an intentional slight on my part, but an oversight, and I apologize for that..)

And that the only way they would violate their freedoms would be if they infringed upon the rights of those at the funeral. In other words, the people at the funeral attempted to ignore them...sometimes some people shout back...and thus they are exercising their freedom of speech.
******Are they saying then that as long as someone is shouting back, that thier rights are not being infinged on? Weird, if I am understanding this correctly***

The Phelps people are not infringing on the freedom of religion by denying the family the funeral based on their beliefs. The Phelps people are not violating their freedom to peacefully assemble because they are not physically harming anyone and are not directly interefering with those who come and go from the funeral (they are not stopping traffic or people).
********So do we need to redefine what is "harm", and define emotional "harm"?*****

Or consider other protesters that you yourself may have encountered at various functions or events. I remember going to a religious service that was being held by a Christian minister with my mom (she's a Christian and she greatly admires this minister). So my sister and I took her to the service. When we got there there weren't just the people there to see the service, there were protesters. And while many were very peaceful (just standing there with a sign and being quiet), others were not (shouting at the people standing in line to get into the service, etc).
**** so if they are peaceful, that is a protest, but if they are shouting at attendees waiting to get in, are they trying to turn them away from attending? If so, is this a peacful protest, or an infringement?

Personally I don't think many of us would even be half as offended as we are by their protests if they could do them without shouting mean things....afterall the signs do plenty of talking. It is, afterall, a funeral. A time of silence, deep reflection, and mourning.
******Absolutely. I have no problem with them saying what they want to say, but with them doing so in such a manner as they do. If they were just standing there with signs, that is another matter..***

Earl D: There also has to be a reason and to do this at a private funeral is usually not a good reason.
It's up to the Cemetary, however to enforce this.They cemetary can have the local police remove anyone who has no true business being their, such as visiting a grave of a friend or family member.

******so if they are standing well outside the cemetary gates, and thier protest is still making it in to the cemetary and disrupting the funeral, is the racket still a protest, or a form of tresspassing/ disturbing the peace?***

This is a totally awesome batch of answers...:)

John Stolworthy:
here is a group to which I belong called the Patriot Guard which forms a line between these protesters and the mourners. It is our right to peacefully assemble, and we do so.
*******I've heard of you folks, well done....It's nice to hear from someone who's actually out in the trenches, so to speak, an insider view...Thank you for the link, too! *******

And Gabriel too, from the trenches, I mean...

Answer 1

Excellent question. The Phelps group does indeed have the right to "peacefully" assemble. Shouting at mourners is not "peaceful". There is a group to which I belong called the Patriot Guard which forms a line between these protesters and the mourners. It is our right to peacefully assemble, and we do so.

All rights have limits. The right to free speech is trumped by the publics right to safety (yelling "fire" in a crowded building is a good example) and inflamatory/hate speech, which the Phelps group is walking a fine line with.

Another consideration is property rights. In the state I live in, most cemetaries, the notable exception being veterans cemetaries, are considered private property.

Phelps and his group of hate-filled "Christians" have a right to assemble on public property, just as I have the right to assemble on public property between them and the family.

I am a liberal, however, who believe in the inherant right of every American to do as they see fit, as long as, in doing so, they aren't infringing on the rights of another to do the same. Phelps speech and actions are bordering on "inciting a riot", however, and this should not be tolerated.

Answer 2

According to US law if a group of people assemble in public, not on their own private land, they are required to comply with all reasonable laws. That includes getting a permit to assemble and demonstrate.

There also has to be a reason and to do this at a private funeral is usually not a good reason.

It's up to the Cemetary, however to enforce this.

They cemetary can have the local police remove anyone who has no true business being their, such as visiting a grave of a friend or family member.

In any event the cemetary can have anyone removed for breaking the peace and serenety of the area.

The Phelps clan is going to eventually face court action, which way things will do is hard to say.

Answer 3

My freedom does not include the right to interfere with your freedom. It should not matter if the interference is non-violent. I say non-violent and not peaceful because it is certainly not peaceful to disturb a funeral. I do not think it would be a violation of the first amendment to ban protesting at funerals because the funerals are also protected by the first amendment and nobody is saying it is wrong to protest the war. In fact many veterans, active duty service members, and families of living and dead service members are opposed to the war. There could be a reasonable law passed that puts a a minimum distance between any political protest and any funeral. That protects everybody's first amendment rights.

Answer 4

It does need to be expanded on. The Phelps and others like them are taking advantage of Freedoms that are given to all of us. In the past, that is how people have lost their freedoms... because a group abuses them. Personally, I don't see a funeral as a public assembly... that's a strictly private affair. If they wish to do that type of thing, they should have to stand outside of the cemetary... off of the property all together. Just as soon as they do that though, old man Phelps with his 10 children who are lawyers would sue... as they have done in the past... which funds their little group to travel to these funerals. There's nothing peaceful about these people... all one has to do is watch any of their interviews. These people do not have peace, so it would make it very hard for them to assemble peacefully.

It's time our judicial system got it's head out of it's rearend.

Answer 5

You pretend to know more than the people who made or enacted the law or the constitution of any country.

Right to free speach and right to free religion is embodied on the constitution of any concern country. You should read and study your constitutional law so that you know and understand what it means and do not just jumped to conclusion about it.

Freedom of speach means that you have the right to say something against anybody"s doing while in the government holding such position but you have no right to say bad words to destroy the personality of anybody. That is on his private life.

Freedom of rteligion means you have the right to choose your own religion., The government will not interfere with you.

Freedom of Assembly means you have the right to group yourselves and assemble in one place for good purpose but not against the gaovernment.

Freedom of religious assembly means grouping yourselves to assemble in one place for the purpose of the funeral of someb ody who was dead and to attend the wake on a dead man.

The action of the Phelps standing across the street with signs against the declared war to one country is not advisable because the declaration of war enacted by the law makers and approve b y the President of a country and with the consent of the other country in engaging a war against them.

You should study your laws before questioning the lawmakers of your country. Good luck.

jtm

Answer 6

It doesn't. It's okay to have an opinion, but at least be open minded enough to understand that other people will have one as well. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but at least listen to it.
As for your example, someone screaming that the deceased is going to hell in the middle of a funeral service is wrong. There is a time and a place to protest things, and during a funeral is not one of them. If you want to protest it, do it quietly, or at least wait until it is over. It is up to the lawmakers to decide where the line is to be drawn, and to define the laws so they are clearer.

Answer 7

This is an excellent question. My only upset with it is that it only addresses the outrage that people have over the protests by the Phelp's clan at war soldier's funerals, but the entire time they went around to the funerals of people who died of AIDS (some gay, some straight) and declared that those people were going to hell because they died from AIDS.......well there was no public outcry for those families that had to endure not only the difficulty of losing a loved one to a horrible disease, but then to endure the shouting and screaming of the protesters led by Phelps. Only after they moved from protesting AIDS funerals to the funerals of war soldiers did they suddenly stir up outrage by the public.

That said, sadly the courts have ruled (previously in cases where families tried to sue them for protesting at the AIDS funerals) that they do have the right to protest (peacefully assemble) and exercize their freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And that the only way they would violate their freedoms would be if they infringed upon the rights of those at the funeral. In other words, the people at the funeral attempted to ignore them...sometimes some people shout back...and thus they are exercising their freedom of speech. The Phelps people are not infringing on the freedom of religion by denying the family the funeral based on their beliefs. The Phelps people are not violating their freedom to peacefully assemble because they are not physically harming anyone and are not directly interefering with those who come and go from the funeral (they are not stopping traffic or people).

Thus while I find it extremely distasteful and rude I'm reminded of what a teacher I had back in high school used to say whenever we'd discuss the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "Freedom of Speech, Religion, etc also includes views we may not agree with. But your freedom ends where my nose begins."

As for trying to show that any interference is intentional and purposely designed to interfere....that would mean that other people who have also peacefully assembled and have, through their words and actions, appeared to be interfering, would also then be subject to this line in the sand. I've been to a few Gay & Lesbian Pride events where protesters showed up that while they were peacefully assemblying, they still shouted at people who were just trying to mind their own business....sometimes saying somewhat hostile things (but again they didn't physically attack anyone so they're still 'peacefully assembled). Or consider other protesters that you yourself may have encountered at various functions or events. I remember going to a religious service that was being held by a Christian minister with my mom (she's a Christian and she greatly admires this minister). So my sister and I took her to the service. When we got there there weren't just the people there to see the service, there were protesters. And while many were very peaceful (just standing there with a sign and being quiet), others were not (shouting at the people standing in line to get into the service, etc).

It's not that I don't understand the outrage. I definately do. Nothing is worse than going to the funeral of someone who is very dear and precious to you and to hear awful things said about them and you. And yet they are exercizing their rights. I've seen a lot of people responding to this the same way many families that lost loved ones to AIDS dealt with Phelps and his church.....counter protest to help try to drowned out the noise from the family and close friends of the loved one who has passed away. Personally I don't think many of us would even be half as offended as we are by their protests if they could do them without shouting mean things....afterall the signs do plenty of talking. It is, afterall, a funeral. A time of silence, deep reflection, and mourning. Perhaps instead of trying to draw a line to try and prevent them from protesting we should just draw a line as to the volume. Not silence, but perhaps protests could do without the bullhorns (unless the target of the protest is in a really high building and thus wouldn't hear them without it or is a considerable distance and wouldn't hear them without it). Perhaps this might bring the sense civility back.

Excellent question.

Peace be with you.

Answer 8

Sadly they have the right to do that, but I really don't think it has anything to do with religion and everything to do with there anti-war protest. But they follow the rules and get the correct paper work, myself I just think its disrespectful and can only hope that in the time of there need they will be disrespected in some way, and I bet they would wounder why. We can't afford to take that freedom away because it will effect may other laws so to do so would also be disrespectful. If that were to happen to my family, I guess I'm going to jail, because there will be violence.

Answer 9

Where does it say that in our world, you cannot speak your mind?
If it is our CUSTOM to remain respectful and silent or at least HUMBLE at a funeral, is it PROPER to yell out at the deceased? NO.
Only those that have lost respect for our customs display this loss of decorum.
The law reflects our customs, yet we do not have one to deny your right to speak loudly at a funeral.
When the preacher lies about how good the deceased was, do we charge him for perjury? NO.
Maybe going to funerals was a wrong idea in the first place,...the natives simply burnt the corpse on a pier of flames, and I believe we missed the boat on that one.
Punch the idiot in the mouth the next time you see him. It will asuage your anger and allow you to go on living without this pain over the outburst at the funeral. But lookout! There IS a law that does NOT allow you to vent yourself in this manner! Just make sure there are NO witnesses!

Answer 10

The right to freedom is no longer a right when the right to freedom is abused. The framers of the Constitution never intended that the Bill of rights should be used to abuse others, rather that these rights be used to prevent abuse. When as person or group of people used the Bill of Rights to disturb the peace, then they manipulating the Bill of Rights to promote their own agenda. There are peaceful and tasteful ways to use our freedoms in order to express our opinions and to set individual agendas. The line between exercising one's rights and abusing one's rights is a murky one at best.

Putting the Constituion in the hands of lawmakers is a dangerous thing because politics is a nasty business. Interpretaion and enforcement of rights is better left to the federal courts because these officials to not have to embroil themselves in day-to-day politics to keep their positions.