Who determines what is and what isn't offensive?
Unless I missed it I haven't seen anything posted about the proposed 'Let Them Rest in Peace Act' that the Illinois General Assembly will soon consider.
Since this site is crawling with guys and gals that enjoy and take full advantage of the First Amendment, I wanted to pose a question to get things off to a rollicking start on Friday morning.
Here's what's on my mind.
Should hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church and its leader, the Rev. Fred Phelps, be censored both in speech and expression because of their actions at military funerals? Should other like groups that spew out vile, disgusting comments that make us cringe and shake our head be silenced? And finally, if you answered 'yes' to either of those questions, tell me who draws the line on what is and what isn't offensive?
In the event that you haven't heard of this legislation, here's a story in the Chicago Tribune.
Also, I wrote a column earlier this week about this topic and was mildly surprised at the amount of emails I received from people saying that, yes indeed, certain speech should be censored.
Here's the column.
Considering the diverse personalities and opinions of the good folks who post here, I'm anxious to see what the thinking is on this topic.
5 comments:
Montana's 1918 sedition law looks like a pretty good idea.
Why not just make it legal for the friends and family of the fallen to beat these people down? Or even better, if not making it legal, the governor should give a wink and a nod to indicate that they would be pardoned.
Jim,
As a sponsor of the bill, let me submit that the act is drafted (as it must be)to cover those screaming God hates America as well as those singing God Bless America. While it was spurred by the actions of Phelps, etc., the idea isn't about quelling any speech per se, but placing reasonable restrictions on the location of that speech for the sole purpose of allowing family, friends and loved ones the simple dignity of laying loved ones to rest.
I am keenly aware of the constitutional implications here, but believe that this has been appropriately drafted to meet those well-established principles. At the risk of throwing kerosine on the tinderbox, think of it as akin to clinic access laws that have been passed and upheld as meeting constitutional muster.
On an aside, don't know if you got the e-mail that I sent you last week. Love the work that you do. I wish that more folks up by me would read the Southern, I find a lot of good stuff in there.
Hon. Fritchey-
Please make corrections if I am incorrect here but isn't the main goal of Phelp's group is to protest while the funeral is occuring to spread their message, influence others, etc.?
I thought that the clinic access law just required a specific distance or precluded the inability of protesters to prevent employees and clients from entering the facility. I think this new bill would only be akin to the clinic access law if the clinic access law prevented protesters from assembling during the hours of clinic operation.
Phelp's group is vile, distasteful and very un-Chritian as I perceive the tenets of Christianity however restricting freedom of others demeans what 'protecting our freedoms' is all about. There is no freedom of speech if we ban what we find distasteful.
As far as I'm concerned, the entire cemetery is a private place of worship during a funeral, if not then people would bury their loved ones in strip malls. I haven't read the bill, but as long as you're limiting access to the service itself (and not, say the roads from the funeral home), then the bill is PROTECTING the First Clause of the First Amendment.
Post a Comment