Ikaros Type Alpha wrote...
1st amendment wrote...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In the past, the soldiers who went to war, were the same soldiers who went to war to defend our rights. So to restrict
(not deny) the right of protesting, would be inept.
Now before I am raged at, I 100% do not condone their actions.
Now then, although they do have to protest, they are disturbing the peace. In the video it was stated that they were not disturbing the peace, because they were protesting in silence, however, that is not necessarily true. They are disrupting a ceremonial event at the expense of others sorrow and grief, and therefore should be classified as disturbing the peace.
Although regarding the situation at hand, I believe this is where utilitarianism comes in hand, as to maintain a balance between the rights of everyone, by producing the greatest good, for the greatest number of people.
Actually I don't think their protest fell under "disturbance of peace".
They followed the regulation - they were 150 meter away from the event, they were not loud. If you take any more action against them, then their freedom will be more restricted than that of the mourners.
Freedom in a democratic society can only extend until it doesn't restrict the freedom of someone else. Ergo it's limited by definition. This definition is dependent on cultural standards and consensus, but never the less it's there. In a equal society it can't be left to "customs" to decide when one crosses these lines. Laws are made precisely so they put the same restrictions and rights on everybody.
So yes, it's painful, but if you're for lawful democracy you have to tolerate protests like these. You don't have to like it, just put up with it.