BCT Editorial – 4/3/06

This page was last updated on April 6, 2006.

Name names; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 3, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Lawmakers failure to identify protesters at military funerals tars anti-war movement

[RWC] Anti-war protesters tarred themselves a long time ago.

“It’s bad enough that state and federal lawmakers want to restrict the freedoms of assembly and speech in the United States.”

[RWC] This is one of those issues I’m torn on. I don’t like restrictions on freedom of speech, but I don’t believe mourners should have to undergo the indignity of hearing these wackos during a funeral service.

“However, they worsen their offense by generalizing about the root cause of the legislation.

“Bipartisan proposals have been introduced in Congress and the Pennsylvania Legislature that would limit protests at military funerals and memorial services.

“Pennsylvania’s proposal would require protesters to remain 500 feet from any funeral, memorial service or memorial procession beginning one hour before and ending one hour after the event. Violators would be charged with a third-degree misdemeanor.

“Lawmakers say they are taking this step in response to incidents of pickets and abusive chants targeting military funerals.

“As odious as these protesters are, they have the right to freedom of assembly and speech, which these proposals clearly would restrict.

“But the sponsors deserve another boot for what they are not saying: The demonstrators they are targeting are not the standard anti-war/anti-military types, as their proposals suggest, albeit indirectly.

“Instead, they’re from the Westboro Baptist Church, a right-wing, fundamentalist congregation located in Topeka, Kan., that believes the soldiers are being killed because the United States is pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda.”

[RWC] Oops, call the editor. The editorial said “pro-homosexual” instead of “pro-gay.” I didn’t think liberal publications were allowed to use the word “homosexual” anymore. <g>

For an editorial that’s so concerned about tarring someone, the author didn’t have a problem tarring so-called right-wingers.

“The lawmakers’ failure to name names implies that anti-war protesters are somehow behind these protests when they are not.

“The sponsors should be telling the American people straight up who the protesters are and what their agenda is instead of tarring the anti-war movement with such a broad brush.”

[RWC] This editorial is hysterical. Times editorials go out of their way to obfuscate, yet the Times is worried it and its fellow travelers will have their reputations tarnished (Is that possible?) because a law doesn’t specifically say it’s not about them.