Limiting Impact of Speech

While most libertarians would agree that SCOTUS properly ruled in favor of the Westboro Batnuts earlier this year, I for one believe that we can limit the impact of their antics.  (Since the press seems to give them limitless attention that they don't deserve).  

Now, Carol County (and maybe even the whole state) is poised to limit the ability of the Batnuts to protest at funerals by increasing the "buffer zone" distance for permitted speech.

I know that in this posting, there is a bit of contradictions and irony, but that is a fraud I am willing to commit.  If SCOTUS says we have no right to sue for monetary damages based upon the brash and indigent speech that is spewed forth by that of Westboro, then the families of fallen soldiers, popular celebs, or anyone that dies tragically with enough media attention should have the ability to not be subjected to speech they don't wish to see or hear.  In that, we are not limiting the ability of the turds to drone their message, but the state can and should restrict their ability with which to use public lands (road right of ways and sidewalks, ect) to protest.

This is truly a compelling interest in its purist form, and one that is fully supported by a majority of the people.  The scope of such a limit does not impact the ability of the attention whores to whore before the cameras for the depraved press, but it does make sure that police officers don't have to stop any vigilante justice seekers from Molotov Cocktail-ing the rejects all the way back to their "pearly gates."  While as we hear the likes of the anti-gun movement shout for common sense restrictions, this prime example of restrictions which are temporary and benign towards enumerated civil rights does protect the rights of both classes of individuals; something that anti-gunners don't seem to be bothered with.

No matter what Carol County and the State of Maryland do, I'm sure these Westboro Batnuts will be back through the state, trying to seek attention.  Should they attempt to breach any buffer zone intended to prevent their harm towards a fellow man, then I certainly wish God to strike them down through some fine lighting bolts of furry from above (and not through the vigilante justice implied could happen above).  After all, irony is a dish best served cold.

Wounded Vet Seeks Vigilante Scare of Westboro Batnuts

Vigilante justice is a dish best served cold!  Well, okay.  That's not exactly the line that Ricardo Montalban's character, Khan, used in the movie Star Trek II, but it does well to describe the message that Ryan J. Newell was trying to send in Westboro, KS. 

According to the Wichita Eagle, Newell decided that it was a good idea to follow a group of Westboro Batnuts with a van full of firearms.  Apparently, that leads to charges of misdemeanor stalking, carrying illegally concealed firearms, and the false impersonation of a police officer.  What is not so clear from the article is if this veteran just happened to be a victim of wrong place, wrong time, and the ever increasing influence upon daily lives of the police / nanny state.  Last I checked, it isn't wrong to carry guns and ammunition in your vehicle, and without knowing the Kansas carry and transpiration laws, I can't even begin to speculate if Newell was in compliance. 

Either way you slice this story, we'll come away with a few generalities.  First, the Westboro Batnuts are still batty.  Second, while vigilante justice is often a way towards feeling better about moral justice, it doesn't solve Constitutional justice.  No matter how wrong these perverted retards are (and we still refuse to call them religious zealots because they speak in political generalities, not scripture), they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Third, if Newell broke the law or his actions even so much appeared to be threatening towards the lives of these pieces of trash, he should be punished for at least harassment.  While I may have some sympathy towards a veteran, the law is the law is the law, and we can't break it or threaten the lives of others simply because we do not agree with them.

Karma works in mysterious ways, and I hope Newell's case get's a fair shake.  After all, that is the only thing that we should truly pray for. 

Fed Judge Rules Missouri Funeral Protest Ban Unconstitutional

From the Military Times, a Federal judge has ruled that Missouri's ban on funeral protesting is unconstitutional.

I guess Westboro Batnut Baptist "Church" will be free to infringe upon the civil liberties of those whom have made the greatest sacrifice for this nation.  I'm not quite sure why this cult seems to get off on the notion of wacky publicity, since most cults want to remain off the grid. 

The infraction of the Judge's unconstitutional ruling is that one man's rights, stop at another man's door step.  Do the Batnuts have the right to protest "God's revenge for homos?"  Sure.  Freedom doesn't discriminate against poor taste or moronic tool bags, but not at the expense of another man's right to grieve in peace.  There are far better forums for them to decry their inbred opinions than that of a soldier's funeral. 

Alas, there are several other cases pending to shutter these rejects from disgracing honorable men that are doing ridiculously hard work and making the ultimate sacrifices, so here is to hoping that the other Judges will get it right.  I guess we'll have to question their existence and necessity of their protests if the 9th Circus, and perhaps eventually SCOTUS, rule that same sex marriage are in deed, unconstitutional as well.  Something tells me though, a favorable ruling to the Wesboro Batnuts, won't stop them from protesting.