Court decideds protestors can destroy the sanctity and privacy of a family right to bury their own. by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
All those degrees, all those clerks of the Courts and attorneys who would work for free to write a Supreme Court decision, and still, they just don't seem to be able to make the simplest decisions.
Nope, I am no lawyer, so my thoughts won't even be considered by the smartest people in the land.
But, maybe years or decades or centuries from now, when my unpedigreed comments are not seen as a threat, someoneof some importance might read them...so here we go.
First, is the right of Freedom of Speech. No question people should have the right to say what they think. Why they have to do it at a cemetery is beyond me, but if that's what they want to do. Fine.
Second, is the right to privacy. Now the Court's most controversial and lethal decision was based on this right, I am told. So clearly it's a powerful right and one the Court is familiar with. Not to mention the right to practice your faith. So we have a hero soldier who died in defense of his nation, the Constitution, and his family. They want to exercise their right to privacy. Seems to me they have every right to that.
So we are left with...the need for a decision. Well, here's whatI woulddecide. Family youcan have your privacy. Bury your son in peace. Protestors, if you want to exercise your freedom of speech you certainly can. And if you want to do it at a cemetery...that's feasible. Just check with the people who run the cemetery and they will schedule you some time when there are no funerals scheduled! Amazing. Bothparties get what they want! No one's right is impeded.
Not hard.
Now my question is, if the person being buried were gay. Not a soldier. Just gay. Would anti-activists be able to protest that funeral? Or would the Court may be see a more enlightened approach?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Amy Kelly
Date: March 4, 2011 03:36:18 AM
However repugnant the heathens who protest those funerals are, their right to protest and spew their hatred MUST be protected. There can be laws attached to their protests (such as distance, not being on the cemetary property, etc.) but to have the Supreme Court rule that they cannot protest flies in the face of the first amendment. i see your point, and I understand your anger, but the true test of a free Republic is how the people respond to acts they find repulsive. We don't go to the Federal Government and ask them to outlaw what we don't like, b/c that means someone else can ask to have something you do like outlawed b/c they don't like it, and the slippery slope begins. What we as a free nation do is stop it ourselves, like the "Angels" that come and block the funeral procession from seeing the signs. Or we counter protest and drown them out. Or we stop talking about them on national TV which is their intended goal. We the people must stop what is obscene, not the federal govt.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: March 4, 2011 09:45:27 AM
Amy,
My solution was NOT to prohibit or ban free speech. My solution was to allow both parties their rights. Those who wish to bury their son in peace, undisturbed by any human interference...and the protestors free to protest and say whatever they like, where ever they like. But ... not at the same time. Freedom of speech is the ability to say what you want...but the right to trample on others rights... in this case the right of privacy.
