Minnesota governor supports limits on funeral protests. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who said he was "disgusted" by confrontational anti-gay picketers at a soldier's funeral in Anoka, on Friday said he would support a bill to limit protests at such events.

 

"I was appalled by the behavior and message and insensitivity of the protesters," Pawlenty said at a news conference. He also expressed his anger during his weekly Friday morning radio show.

The Republican governor had attended the funeral a day before for Cpl. Andrew Kemple, killed Feb. 12 in Iraq. It was picketed by a small group from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., which has demonstrated at soldier's funerals around the country, making the claim that God is killing U.S. soldiers who fight for a country that tolerates homosexuality.

 

The six-person group picketed near the door of Zion Lutheran Church and at one point had a direct confrontation with Kemple's mother, who told them they were hateful. Pawlenty repeatedly praised Deirdre Ostlund for her composure and grace, especially for commenting during the funeral that her son died to protect the free speech rights being exercised by the protesters.

 

The group was led by Shirley Phelps-Roper, the daughter of Fred Phelps, founder of the nondenominational church. It gained infamy in the 1990s for, among other things, picketing at the funerals of AIDS victims and of Matthew Shepard, the Wyoming college student killed in 1998 by two men he met at a bar.

The more recent demonstrations at soldier's funerals have drawn the ire of politicians, and bills to limit such protests are being considered or have passed in more than a dozen states, including Wisconsin, where Gov. Jim Doyle signed such a bill into law this week.

 

Several Minnesota lawmakers have introduced bills here in advance of the legislative session, which starts Wednesday. One, proposed by Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, would require that protesters at all funerals be required to stay at least 300 feet away from mourners.

 

"People have a right to demonstrate, but they don't have a right to infringe on the rights of a family trying to mourn the loss of a loved one," Severson said. "That too is a fundamental right."

 

Some version of the bill can expect bipartisan support. Rep. Karen Clark, DFL-Minneapolis and the House's only openly gay member, said she would sign on as a co-sponsor - despite her own anger toward Severson, chief House sponsor of a constitutional amendment banning marriage or civil unions for gay couples, and Pawlenty, who supports it.

 

"It doesn't fool me that their own agenda, which has its own little piece of hatred, will not continue," Clark said.

 

Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said the two issues are completely separate. Pawlenty, in previous comments on the gay marriage amendment, has stressed the importance of debating the issue with respect for all involved.

 

Phelps-Roper has said that her group will sue to overturn any state laws limiting their free speech rights. But Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota, said the bill could most likely be crafted in a way that preserves speech rights while keeping a distance between protesters and funeral-goers.

Whether the state should pursue such a law is another question, Samuelson said.

"This guy, Fred Phelps - I'm as opposed to his message as I can possibly be," Samuelson said. "But at the end of the day, this kind of attention is just what he craves. It's like red meat to a dog."

 

 

This is becoming more and more of a story as these protests become more "popular" due to media coverage they get (not saying they shouldn't get coverage, but "nuts will be nuts").

 

Here's Fred Phelps website for anyone interested:

www.godhatesfags.com

 

My own opinion is this kind of crap is beyond despicable. I know there are certain motorcycle groups now who will do escorts to the church, etc. so the family doesn't have to see this crap, but there is no causal connection whatsoever to this bulls*** war and gays.

 

And yet, I'm conflicted because I want protest to be able to go anywhere, if the right circumstance allows for it (even a funeral).

 

My solution: pay off the cops to make sure they're not around and have those bikers beat some ass. It's literally the only solution I could come up with. These protests are that ridiculous. I don't know, this kind of crap just makes me angry and sad.

Touchy issue. you have points on both sides there. But they shouldnt do that to a war hero.

"Warning: Gospel Preaching Ahead!"

 

That was enough to keep me from reading any further!

 

 

I would not ban them from protesting whatever nonsense they feel like protesting, but definitely ban them from doing so in certain places, like funerals.

Unfortunately as long as the protestors arent in the cemetery they have a right to protest.

Touchy issue. you have points on both sides there. But they shouldnt do that to a war hero.

 

 

 

but they should do it to a homeless guy?

Touchy issue. you have points on both sides there. But they shouldnt do that to a war hero.

 

 

 

but they should do it to a homeless guy?

 

 

Has that happened? Regardless, its always a touchy matter when u pit privacy against freedom of expression/assembly

They should be allowed to do it, but I also reserve the right to break their noses.

"Warning: Gospel Preaching Ahead!"

 

That was enough to keep me from reading any further!

 

 

I would not ban them from protesting whatever nonsense they feel like protesting, but definitely ban them from doing so in certain places, like funerals.

 

 

Or maybe the state of the union address?????

 

 

 

 

slippery slope.....

They should be allowed to do it, but I also reserve the right to break their noses.

 

Exactly.

"Warning: Gospel Preaching Ahead!"

 

That was enough to keep me from reading any further!

 

 

I would not ban them from protesting whatever nonsense they feel like protesting, but definitely ban them from doing so in certain places, like funerals.

 

 

Or maybe the state of the union address?????

 

 

 

 

slippery slope.....

 

Well, it seems the state of the union address already does not allow protesters, so why allow them at funerals? There is a time and place for everything.

"Warning: Gospel Preaching Ahead!"

 

That was enough to keep me from reading any further!

 

 

I would not ban them from protesting whatever nonsense they feel like protesting, but definitely ban them from doing so in certain places, like funerals.

 

 

Or maybe the state of the union address?????

 

 

 

 

slippery slope.....

 

Well, it seems the state of the union address already does not allow protesters, so why allow them at funerals? There is a time and place for everything.

 

 

Yeah, I agree, except it's not that simple. When it involves protesting against a sitting administration, sommmme people think that stifling a form of protest at a SOTU-caliber event is pure evil.

Yeah, I've seen those protests, they're pretty ridiculous.

Yeah, I agree, except it's not that simple. When it involves protesting against a sitting administration, sommmme people think that stifling a form of protest at a SOTU-caliber event is pure evil.

Well, the State of the Union isn't a time for protesting. You can protest before and after. But have a little respect for the formalities. Have to go through the motions.

 

Besides, our Freedom of Speech isn't 100% guaranteed. You know that. These funeral protests I think fall squarely under unprotected speech.

Yeah, I agree, except it's not that simple. When it involves protesting against a sitting administration, sommmme people think that stifling a form of protest at a SOTU-caliber event is pure evil.

Well, the State of the Union isn't a time for protesting. You can protest before and after. But have a little respect for the formalities. Have to go through the motions.

 

Besides, our Freedom of Speech isn't 100% guaranteed. You know that. These funeral protests I think fall squarely under unprotected speech.

 

In a lot of other cases they're doing it in the streets where the procession has to go by. You can't tell people they can't protest on a street, you just can't do it. Maybe make the church and the graveyard off limits, but you cannot infringe upon our right to protest in the streets.

 

Here's some garbage that infuriates me, but I cannot be alone in my anger:

 

 

 

 

 

The thing that strikes me, is if God hates America, who does he like? There's bad sh*t happening everywhere. Hurricanes, mudslides, war, famine, aids, terrorism, religious craziness... I mean, come on.

Possibly.

 

But individual states, according to SCOTUS, do have the right to pass time-place-manner doctrine. If a state says you can't protest in the street unless you have a permit, that law is probably going to stand up in court. It's a pretty big state interest to keep people out of the streets where cars and other forms of transit pass. Also, if you're protesting like they are in the streets where a procession must pass for the funeral to take place, it can be argued that by disturbing the process of a very emotional event, the protestors' speech is one that is aimed at inciting a reaction from those participating in the event.

 

It's a testy issue, but what has to be kept in mind is that your rights start where the next person's end. I think it's a pretty reasonable argument to say that this speech is infringing on the rights of those mourning their loss. Sure, the protest is a form of political speech (the most protected type of speech) but at the same time the goal of the speech can be accomplished by protesting somewhere else. While these six people might want to get their message out, they also want to incite a reaction from those who are mourning which is certainly not entirely protected.

 

And I have to say, these protestors have the wrong message and I don't agree with them at all, but the fact that here we are talking about it on a message board rather than discussing the riot they caused brings a smile to my face. No where else.

Yeah, I agree, except it's not that simple. When it involves protesting against a sitting administration, sommmme people think that stifling a form of protest at a SOTU-caliber event is pure evil.

Well, the State of the Union isn't a time for protesting. You can protest before and after. But have a little respect for the formalities. Have to go through the motions.

 

Besides, our Freedom of Speech isn't 100% guaranteed. You know that. These funeral protests I think fall squarely under unprotected speech.

 

I think you misread me - I agree with you - my quoted post was mostly sarcasm.

I have no problem with silent forms of protest as government functions (as in a t-shirt). Also, I don't think when you're protesting you have to worry about other people's feelings. I mean, if I'm walking with an anti-war sign and you drive by your natural reaction could be to get offended.

 

I don't think we should stifle protest because people disagree with the sentiment. However, in the case that the sentiment sucks I think it's the publics job, in some way, to say, "Look, we don't agree with you, nor do we appreciate what you're doing. So stop." That's the classic form of what Mill would WANT and hopefully the protesters would stop, but in this case, with people this vehemently religious and taking the bible as a literal book...

 

It takes something more. I'm not saying violence. But a better way of making them look like fools and telling them to shut the f*** up.

 

Bottom line: I don't want street corners to be stopped from having a sentiment I disagree with marched on. I look FORWARD to thay sentiment, even if I don't agree with it. I always enjoy listening to the sermons given on the Ohio State oval by the crazy Father Bob, as he tells students they're going to hell and as the students try and argue with a nut. I mean, I don't agree with the guy on any level and yet I respect his right to be there.

 

Essentially the best form of getting people to go away is to ignore them. However, in the case of a funeral, you're right, emotions run high. I still don't think it's a reason to STOP the protest. But, there needs to be a better way to get public opinion to get them to stop.

Well, I don't necessarily think it's a form of protest that needs to be stopped, either. I agree with you completely, but from what I've learned of freedom of speech law so far something like this is going to fall basically on the legislature. If they write up a law saying no protesting around funerals, it'll most likely be held up. At least that's the way the precedent has come down so far.

 

As far as the people's response, the best response is always to ignore or to engage in an intelligent debate. Not so sure a funeral is any time for a debate of any sort, which is where the problem lies. Anytime there is a protest at such a high emotion event like a funeral, I think the police must be present to make sure nothing goes wrong. That way the speech is protected and you're ensured nothing is going to go wrong as far as a fight or a riot is concerned.

 

Then again, if a law was passed it would require police intervention in trying to prevent any issue before the protestor(s) were arrested anyways, so might as well just leave the statutes as is and tell the cops to be ready just in case something goes down. I know that if I was at a family member's funeral and someone was talking sh*t, I'd be a lot more inclined to physically do something about it than I would under almost any other state of mind. Just having the shields there knowing this is a good thing. And the speech stays legal.

 

I guess the issue with this then becomes well how are the cops going to be able to be there unless the protestors have a permit in the first place. Since this only happens at funerals of soldiers anyways, it could be both a practical and token gesture to have an armed guard (and I'm not talking about just two random guys on bikes either) march with the fallen and those mourning them to keep the peace and the dignity of the ceremony intact. I'd hate to say have the military march armed with the family, because the military has no business involving itself in domestic affairs, even though that would make things easier. Having the police there though in all their dress regalia (and their standard issue weapons) would ease things up.

 

Thing is, no one really wants to have to make police march in riot gear along a funeral procession because some people don't know how to let families have a little dignity. But if that's what it takes to hold the speech up and to make sure nothing goes wrong, that's the price you pay.

I wish torture and death on these "protestors". Those signs are absolutely disgusting.

I wish torture and death on these "protestors". Those signs are absolutely disgusting.

 

 

Go to Godhatesamerica.com if you want to be angered even further.

I'd kill each and every one of those motherf***ers if that was my kid.