Comments on: Schieffer on Free Speech and Military Funerals
Asks, If One Cannot Shout "Fire" in Crowded Theater, Must Harassment of the Grieving to Promote a Cause Be Allowed?
Add a Comment
- 1. What the Phelps are doing is nothing short of cruelty. 2. Why would we stop them from protesting at a soldier's funeral and not stop them from protesting at the funeral of someone who is gay or who has done something else that made them angry? Don't the parents of everyone deserve protection at the most painful time of their life? Shouldn't we make it a broad prohibition of all funerals? Just a thought.
- Reply to this comment
- rafaeldrc - legally what do you mean? Like are you suggesting that one's right to say anything they want supercedes potential harm to society? That the ruling the you can't shout fire in a crowded theater was wrong? Or taking this idea of the individual liberty protections afforded by the constitution, that those who kill with guns should never be incarcerated because that might pose a chilling effect to the second amendment? Clearly you must accept that there are occasions when the benefits outweigh the burdens. And there's no burden in this case where anti-war messages should have been happening in Washington anyways, but some fame-grubber decided they could get people to look and watch by being outrageous.
- Reply to this comment
- The Constitution of the United States does not seem to provide a universal pulpit for the expression of free speech. Let them say what they want, within existing limits, at a place away from the funerals or the motorcade routes. There are already other restrictions on the "where" aspect such as on private property or elsewhere where it is considered a disturbance (try it in a courtroom and see what happens). However, there is a question as to how demonstrations at funerals can be restricted. Some people demonstrate at funerals in support of the deceased and their families; is this also to be restricted under equal protection?
- Reply to this comment
- This isn't about freedom of speech it is about harassment. On those grounds alone, the $5 million settlement should be upheld.
- Reply to this comment
- I don't believe what these people did merits placing limits on Freedom of Speech. There are lots of stupid people out there, but why should another law, or the interpretation of an existing law be codified, such that, all of us will be affected for the actions of the stupid. Hopefully, the actions of the stupid are the exception, rather than the rule. And if the majority can function normally and in good faith, then we should tolerate the actions of the stupid to guarantee our own freedoms. Freedom of Speech is far more important than the feelings of those hurt by the actions of the stupid. The repercussion of limitations are far more damaging and will signal the beginning of even greater erosion in the future. Yes, their feelings were hurt. So are mine, at times, but that's not a reason to change Freedom of Speech.
- Reply to this comment
- "Codes of conduct" are eliminating any free speech in fortune 500 companies. Not being able to offend people in positions of power is opening up a pathway towards the elimination of free speech.
- Reply to this comment
- Mr. Axelrod makes financial accusations without evidence and tops it off by not even answering a simple question about smoking. I almost turned off the set. Glad I didn't. Mr. Schieffer's closing commentary was priceless. I can only hope people in leadership positions will take his insightful yet obvious message to heart, and stop the unconscionable form of protest at funerals by plain and simple heartless people. Thank you, Bob. Especially well done, sir!
- Reply to this comment
- This may be legal, but it is very sick. They are making a very sad time more tragic then it has to be. They are also violating the family's privacy by what they are doing. I think this "church" is just a twisted cult looking to do damage to people who are in mourning to satisfy some realy perverted urge
- Reply to this comment
- All religious types are part whackjob.
- Reply to this comment
- I would hate to say this but somebody one day who has lost their son or daughter for our freedom we have and apply the right to defend there family with the 2nd amendment! Then what will be the argument? The right of free speech or the right to defend themselves against a person or group who breeds hate!
- Reply to this comment
