Okay to Protest Funerals, But Not Okay to Speak Freely Before City Council?

by lewwaters

I have to say that I am not only shocked, but very disappointed in the Supreme Court Decision granting the Westboro assholes the ‘right’ to protest funerals of our fallen heroes and disrespect families and loved ones in their moment of grief. That conservative justices Scalia, Thomas and Roberts agree disappoints me even more.

By a decision of 8 to 1 the Supreme Court rules First Amendment protects church’s right to picket funerals, granting those inbred slime from Topeka, Kansas the ‘right’ to disrupt the funerals of fallen Military heroes, trampling over loved ones right to a moment of personal grief and sorrow.

I couldn’t disagree more with the Supreme Court over this. Such decisions may be legal, but that doesn’t mean they are just.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, concerning the Westboro inbreds’ actions, “is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But government cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

Really? But I can be brought up on hate speech allegations for uttering the word “faggot” to a gay or worse yet, using the inciteful ‘N-word’ towards a Black person? But the scum from Kansas can disrupt funerals with signs and chants of “God hates fags” and that is protected?

Apparently not considered, should John Lewis or another aging civil rights activist pass away, they will have no opposition to the Ku Klux Klan protesting their funeral? Would Justice Roberts words, “to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” apply at a Klan protest of a fallen civil rights activist or should a public figure such a Joe Lieberman pass away and the American Nazi Party show up in full regalia to protest Israel at that funeral?

The lone dissenter in this decision, Samuel Alito says it best with, “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault.”

As much as this decision disappoints me, I am left profoundly confused that the Supreme Court can protect the hateful speech of the slugs from Topeka, yet our own city council in Vancouver, Washington works to limit and stifle citizens right to speak freely before an open mic in opposition to their ongoing agenda, previously discussed HERE, HERE and HERE.

Of issue in speaking before city council, bringing up matters they say are not on the agenda, i.e. forcing Loot Rail and an overly expensive replacement bridge project on the community, but looking at the cities website under Guidelines for Citizen Communications we read,

“Previously adopted City Council Meetings Policy and Procedure states that Citizens Communications is the place on the agenda when the public is invited to speak for approximately three minutes about an issue of concern or interest not already scheduled for public hearing during the meeting, or otherwise addressed on the agenda. Citizens with complaints, concerns or questions will be encouraged to refer the matter to the City Manager or ask that the matter be placed on a further City Council agenda meeting, according to the policy.”

As voices continue to rise against policies forced on citizens, they simply change the policy to suit the plans of council, placing citizen concerns dead last.

It has even gotten far enough for the mayor to bring in a “friend” to trump up allegations of being intimidated by citizens opposed to the boondoggle project.

Has our country gotten so upside down that the laws protect those that would cause hurt to innocent families and loved ones, while also denying, limiting or regulating legitimate citizen concerns being freely and openly expressed before city council on public projects?

For all of the current cries of “human decency” being thrown about by those who protest the call of public unions to share in the sacrifice during these dire economic times, where is the call of human decency in allowing such hurtful and mean-spirited actions during a loved one’s deepest time of grief?

What has happened to America?

8 Responses to “Okay to Protest Funerals, But Not Okay to Speak Freely Before City Council?”

  1. The Westboro Church has been condemned by Christian leaders all over the nation, as they should be. But let us not forget that what the Westboro Church is saying, no matter how rudely they say it, is not unbiblical at all – 1 Corinthians 6:9.

    The Phelps Klan may spread the message where they shouldn’t be – the funerals of straight soldiers, but the message that homosexuals will go to hell is a very real one according to the Bible.

  2. I don’t believe we have ‘hate speech’ laws in America, as you suggest. Europe does, and Canada does. You can still call someone a “fag” or a “nigger” and not go to jail.

    Now if you hit them over the head while calling them a name you are guilty of a hate crime (not just the ordinary crime of hitting them over the head) and you will get extra punishment. That’s what our hate crime laws punish.

    But I’ve never seen anyone punished for merely using a tasteless word, even in anger.

  3. I prefer to leave condemnations of hell up to God, not men who interpret scripture differently.

    That being said, a loved one’s grief must be given precedent over someone misusing free speech to disrupt a funeral, for any reason. It’s one thing to stand outside your alleged “church” and speak your message. It is entirely another thing to actually disrupt a family and loved ones to speak hurtful messages at the grave sight.

    The slippery slope comes into play and I don’t like thinking of where this could lead.

  4. “First Amendment? We don’t need no stinkin’ First Amendment!”

  5. No 1st Amendment? Has the city council jumped on a flight from Portland Airport with a one way ticket to North Korea to do a private inspection in how they run their government?

  6. The current claim is that the proposal to modify citizen communication and move it to twice a month in somewhat town hall format retains free speech and will allow the comments they seem to not want to hear.

    I still see it as regulating or limiting access to speak to council.

    Much of this is brought about by Leavitt’s “friend,” the Deputy DA who claims the NoTolls people giggled and one looked at her after she spoke her well rehearsed theatrical testimony Feb 7.

    They now claim citizen communications have become “adversarial” and “intimidating.”

    You would think someone as accomplished as she is would know better.

  7. While it might not be an actual crime just yet, it has several supporters pushing to make those words crimes. You also cannot deny that using the dreaded ‘N-word’ has caused celebrities and others to be vilified. Ask Mark Fuhrman or Mel Gibson. Even if uttered while drunk or a very long time ago, they were vilified.

    Recently at Clark College in Washington State, a stink was raised over a teacher claiming to have heard unidentified “hate speech,” resulting in campus security being called to the scene, although whoever allegedly used whatever word was claimed was long gone. Naturally, extra security was provided for a few days, just in case such a word was used publicly again on campus.

    While such words might not actually be a prosecutable crime just yet, it’s not far away.


Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: