From The Congressional Record:
HONORING THOSE WHO MADE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE -- (House of Representatives - May 11, 2006) The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is an important duty of all of us who serve here to pay respect, to express our gratitude, to join in the sorrow of those and their families who are serving this Nation in a time of war. I have tried very hard to do that whenever the occasion occurred. I have attended funerals of young men who were killed, and in one case a man not so young.
I was pleased on Saturday to attend a welcoming home ceremony for one young man who returned. I attended a ceremony to see off a group of Guardsmen.
The merits of the war are irrelevant when it comes to honoring and expressing our gratitude to those who have served.
Having said that, I want to say that I deeply regretted that yesterday, Tuesday rather, I felt called upon to vote against a bill that was presented here under the suspension of the rules which allowed for no serious debate and zero chance of amendment, a bill which in part protected veterans' funerals from the disruption that they have encountered. And it is true that a particularly contemptible group of bigots are harassing people at some funerals. And we have every right and under the Constitution the power to stop it.
Sadly, a badly overdrafted bill was brought forth with no chance for us to amend it. And I do not think we honor our veterans by failing to honor our Constitution. So I had to vote against the bill. Part of the bill, if it had been in part, if we could have amended it down, I would have proudly supported, the part that would have said you cannot have a demonstration in which any individual is willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the funeral, memorial service or ceremony on a military cemetery. But the bill went before that.
The bill says that for 60 minutes before a funeral and 60 minutes after, within 500 feet of the cemetery, you can't hold up a sign that might be offensive to people. You can't picket. It doesn't just say noise. It says diversion, and it defines it, any picketing, the display of any placard, banner, flag or similar device.
When we had an outrageous effort to intimidate a Danish newspaper because they exercised the right of free press and published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, which many Muslims found offensive, some people, apologists for this outrageous behavior against the newspaper, said, well, you know it is free speech. But free speech has to be respectful. Free speech has to be within limits.
No, it does not. Free speech is not respectful speech. Indeed, the American Constitution, the principle of free speech precisely protects the right of despicable people to be obnoxious. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in free speech.
In fact, the particular group of vicious people who have been disrupting the funerals have as their major goal getting rid of people like me, gay men and lesbians. They particularly hate us. But I will not allow their bigotry against me and the reaction against that to be used to reduce the protections of our Constitution.
The parts of this bill that say that if you try to disrupt a funeral you are going to be prevented, they are fine. But telling people that 60 minutes before or after a funeral, within 500 feet of a national cemetery, they can't picket or hold up a banner, that is not free speech. That is not what we fight for.
I have defended previously the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie, to the great horror of victims of the Holocaust, or survivors of the Holocaust.
I told the Muslims who tried to coerce the Danish press that no matter how offensive they found that cartoon, freedom of expression meant that no government should stop you from being offensive.
Disrupting a funeral, of course you should not do that. We should not allow ourselves, through restrictive legislative procedures, to act against an admitted evil, the disruption of those ceremonies, in ways that could undermine the Constitution.
So I hope this will come back from the Senate in a form I can vote for. I would have voted for part of this bill; but I cannot, no matter how despicable the bigots who are defaming this Nation and disrupting cemeteries, I will not allow their behavior to be used as an excuse for undermining the right of other people in other places to hold signs. People holding signs within 200 feet of a cemetery, a half hour after a funeral that some people find offensive, that is free speech. And the way to counter that is to counter that. So I regret very much, in fact, Mr. Speaker, and I don't mean to look for sympathy here. I had an operation here last week. I had a stent, and I was supposed to return early Tuesday to have the stent removed. I delayed my return because I wanted to attend this funeral of the young man who was killed. Obviously, the discomfort of my stent was nothing to what people face who are in Iraq. But I simply want to testify that I will do everything I can to continue to honor these people, but that does not require us to demean the first amendment to the Constitution.
» Bloomberg marriage double-talk (left) (New York Daily News)
