NationStates Jolt Archive

Much as I loath Fred Phelps and company; I found it interesting that the government couldn't be bothered with him protesting Gay funerals. Yet, they leaped to defend the integrity of soldier funerals.

You want freedom of speech and expression? It has to include assholes like Fred Phelps. His crime is far less then setting the rules for acceptable expression.

Anyhow! Let the bitching commence!

Sorry for the cut and past but the Post wants logins:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials

By Garance Burke
Associated Press
Sunday, July 23, 2006; Page A02

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality.

The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps say God is allowing troops, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gay men and lesbians.

Missouri lawmakers were spurred to action after members of the church protested in St. Joseph, Mo., last August at the funeral of Army Spec. Edward L. Myers.

The law bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. Offenders can face fines and jail time.

A number of other state laws and a federal law, signed in May by President Bush, bar such protests within a certain distance of a cemetery or funeral.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message. It is asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and to issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced, which would allow the group to resume picketing.

"I told the nation, as each state went after these laws, that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps's daughter Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the church in Topeka, Kan. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."

Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said, "We're not going to acquiesce to anything that they're asking for in this lawsuit."

The suit names Nixon, Gov. Matt Blunt (R) and others as defendants.

I dont think organizing a group to try to get a message accross at a funeral is freedom of speech.

I look at it as harrassment.

Wether its at a soldier's funeral, or a homosexuals-its still a scumbag way to voice your opinion.
I hope I never encounter it at any funeral I attend.

I hope I never encounter it at any funeral I attend.

I hope I do...

It doesn't really surprise me, I'll throw it on the big pile of
"Reasons freedom of expression is a bad Idea"

Surely that was expected?

Very good work, ACLU.

Once again touching something far too un-PC for any politician.

Despicable as the christian protesters are, they deserve their day in court.

It's called due process.

I just have to wonder whether the Phelps Brigade has anything to do with the original purpose of the freedom of speech. This hardly seems to be true civil disobedience, rather it seems to be harassment of people they don't like.

EDIT: They have ample forums for the expression of their ideas, yet they choose to specifically target those people they hate rather than the public at large.

Well, like Ive said:

You have a right to free speech, which includes bashing the ACLU, but should that right ever be infringed upon, guess who would back you up.

Oh well. If they do get it reversed, I can imagine there being a lot of dead Westboro Baptist church members, ironically enough, at the funerals.

It's freedom of speech. But they should be pushed back 300 feet out of respect. OH! Funrals with electric fence, Phelps goes ZZZzrrrtrtrtrtrtrttttttt!:mp5:

Well, good for the ACLU and good for Phelps & Comany. They have every right to sue. I hope they lose, but they surely have the right to sue until hell won't have them. ;)

I hope they lose,

You want freedom of speech to only apply to those you agree with?

How....undemocratic.

At the end of the day, freedom of speech means "freedom from consequences."

These people may be guilty of harassment or something along those lines, in which case their barring is legitimate.

It is nevertheless imperative that the christian protesters be allowed to spread their deranged message - however un-PC it is - with impunity.

It is nevertheless imperative that the christian protesters be allowed to spread their deranged message - however un-PC it is - with impunity.
You mean all protestors yes? Oh and *Is going to bed*

Well, my first reaction was to go "WHAT DO THEY THINK THEY'RE DOING?!" and rant and rave at the ACLU for defending Fred Phelps. Then I realized that's idiotic. The ACLU is doing exactly what they are there for: defending constitutional rights, and regardless of the person or people they are defending, it is the right thing to do.

You want freedom of speech to only apply to those you agree with?

How....undemocratic.

No one is saying that Phelps and co. can't spread their message - just that they can't do so at, or within a certain distance of, a funeral. I don't see a major difference between this and laws that say you can't protest in the middle of a busy street during high-traffic areas, or other similar laws. The government is protecting its citizens, while still allowing unpopular ideas to be heard.

You want freedom of speech to only apply to those you agree with?

How....undemocratic.

I want freedom of speech, not freedom of harassment.

They have a great many more visible forums to express their opinions than a cemetary. That speaks volumes to what their goals actually are.

The court has previously held that picketing outside private residences and other places with captive audiences - audiences who cannot leave or "turn their heads"- is not protected.

This logic may apply to funerals, we shall have to see when it goes before the courts.

I want freedom of speech, not freedom of harassment.

They have a great many more visible forums to express their opinions than a cemetary. That speaks volumes to what their goals actually are.

They could also express their views without getting right up next to someone whose loved one has just died and yelling, "YOUR SON/DAUGHTER/HUSBAND/WIFE/etc. IS GOING TO HELL FOR SUPPORTING THE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

The fact that they feel this type of harrassment is a proper form of "protest" also speaks volumes to their actual intentions.

I'll go with the old standby -- I may hate what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it.

I've posted in many other threads in the ACLU's defense that they defend ANYONE who comes to them with a legitimate First Amendment case. The Right loves to use the ACLU as a punching bag, and I always call them on it because only when the ACLU defends someone who offends a large group's sensibilities do they get any coverage (some liberal media, huh?).

I recall being called a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU once in an argument as a kind of insult or proof of bad character. I reached into my wallet and proudly showed him my card, saying that at least I had the balls to back up my point of view with action.

Hooray for the ACLU!

(Hooray, beer!)

The court has previously held that picketing outside private residences and other places with captive audiences - audiences who cannot leave or "turn their heads" is not protected.

This logic may apply to funerals, we shall have to see when it goes before the courts.

I think it does apply. I can simply ignore a protest outside the CDC or at the Capitol, or any number of places. However, the choice between being harrassed or not attending my child's/spouse's/parent's funeral is not a choice at all.

I think it does apply. I can simply ignore a protest outside the CDC or at the Capitol, or any number of places. However, the choice between being harrassed or not attending my child's/spouse's/parent's funeral is not a choice at all.


Precisely, but the christians still deserve their day in court, even if they are clearly in the wrong.

Precisely, but the christians still deserve their day in court, even if they are clearly in the wrong.

I wouldn't really refer to these people as "the christians". Maybe "this group of christians" would be more appropriate. Otherwise, it sounds as if they represent all Christians - which they absolutely do not.

Meanwhile, I agree. Everyone gets their day in court.

Well, they self-identify as christians and they make an extremely compelling argument from the bible, where god uses violence to massacre the homosexuals that he hates and the people who harbor them.

I wouldn't really refer to these people as "the christians". Maybe "this group of christians" would be more appropriate. Otherwise, it sounds as if they represent all Christians - which they absolutely do not.

Meanwhile, I agree. Everyone gets their day in court.
Well, everyone may get their day in court, but I'd wager at least half neither need nor deserve it. That's the problem in this country, everyone wants their day in court, and of course lawyers want that too.

We're hyper-litigious here, and the notion that everything must be sued over is the problem.

I commend the ACLU for doing it's job.

However, when I think of Fred Phelps and his..."family"...I wonder if what they do crosses the boundary of free speech and religious freedom to harrassment. They delibrately seek out a certain group, or sometimes an individual and make it their personal mission to make their lives a living hell.

THAT sounds like harrassment.

Well, everyone may get their day in court, but I'd wager at least half neither need nor deserve it. That's the problem in this country, everyone wants their day in court, and of course lawyers want that too.

We're hyper-litigious here, and the notion that everything must be sued over is the problem.


Its called "due process" and it is the real price of freedom.

Much as I loath Fred Phelps and company; I found it interesting that the government couldn't be bothered with him protesting Gay funerals. Yet, they leaped to defend the integrity of soldier funerals.

Just goes to show the ACLU will take on any scumbag as a client in their never ending march at destroying America.

I want freedom of speech, not freedom of harassment.

They have a great many more visible forums to express their opinions than a cemetary. That speaks volumes to what their goals actually are.

Like Free Speech Zones.....

Just goes to show the ACLU will take on any scumbag as a client in their never ending march at destroying America.

True! They did defend Rush Limbaugh.

Much as I loath Fred Phelps and company; I found it interesting that the government couldn't be bothered with him protesting Gay funerals. Yet, they leaped to defend the integrity of soldier funerals.

That's what the real stinky poo is with this whole thing - Phelps was picketing the funerals of gays for years and they did nothing. All of a sudden it becomes "bad" and something to ban when he does it to soldiers.

The hypocrisy is sickening. If he can do it at the funerals of gay people, he should be able to do it at the funeral of a soldier - gay or straight. I hope he wins.

You want freedom of speech to only apply to those you agree with?

How....undemocratic.
Insulting as always, I see. No, what I want is the same standard held for all funerals. Every family has the right to say goodbye in peace, without some idiot protesters ranting nearby.

That's what the real stinky poo is with this whole thing - Phelps was picketing the funerals of gays for years and they did nothing. All of a sudden it becomes "bad" and something to ban when he does it to soldiers.

The hypocrisy is sickening. If he can do it at the funerals of gay people, he should be able to do it at the funeral of a soldier - gay or straight. I hope he wins.
Though to be fair they have a bit more control with how the law is worded … over military funerals, as they are done at Arlington or other federal cemeteries.

It gives them a bit more foothold to control their own land rather then the land of other institutions like the RC churches property or other private cemeteries.

Don’t get me wrong I still think it is stupid but at least it is understandable stupid.

Insulting as always, I see. No, what I want is the same standard held for all funerals. Every family has the right to say goodbye in peace, without some idiot protesters ranting nearby.
Sense when do we have the right to not be offended?

True! They did defend Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh was never a client of the ACLU. The filed an Amicus brief in his case. Not the same thing, but keep up the good work.

Rush Limbaugh was never a client of the ACLU. The filed an Amicus brief in his case. Not the same thing, but keep up the good work.

Sorry I can't draw a picture for you to follow.

Fact remains they supported/defended one of their bashers.

Good try though.....

I commend the ACLU for doing it's job.

However, when I think of Fred Phelps and his..."family"...I wonder if what they do crosses the boundary of free speech and religious freedom to harrassment. They delibrately seek out a certain group, or sometimes an individual and make it their personal mission to make their lives a living hell.

THAT sounds like harrassment.
I agree.

Sense when do we have the right to not be offended?
Good question! Next time someone brings up things like "hate speech," I'll keep that comment in mind. :D

Sorry I can't draw a picture for you to follow.

Fact remains they supported/defended one of their bashers.

Good try though.....
In you response to my post about ACLU clients, you named Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was never a client of the ACLU. Do you need it written in crayon?

Keep up the less than adequate work though...

Good question! Next time someone brings up things like "hate speech," I'll keep that comment in mind. :D
And I will agree with you if you bring it up in support of freedom of speech

IMHO the only speech that should be restricted is that which can be shown to be easily and directly shown to endanger others personal safety (Such as yelling fire in a crowded building)

I agree with those that say that there is freedom of speech, not freedom of harrassment. Phelps and co. should not be able to protest without consent in private areas and private events- quite simply, it's trespassing. Otherwise, what really keeps him from waving one of his stupid signs around at little girls' tea parties and in people's living rooms in the name of "free speech"? If he wants to protest, he can do it in a public area, where he won't be trespassing.

EDIT: And I'm not being exclusive. It should apply for all of the funerals that that idiot pickets.

Well, they self-identify as christians and they make an extremely compelling argument from the bible, where god uses violence to massacre the homosexuals that he hates and the people who harbor them.

I never said they weren't Christians. I simply pointed out that they do not represent all, or even most, Christians. They are an extreme fringe group, so you shouldn't refer to this small group as if Christians en masse are suing for the right to harrass people at funerals.


Like Free Speech Zones.....

The difference, of course, being that "free speech zones" are designed specifically to keep politicians and the media from seeing them - making them *less* visible.


That's what the real stinky poo is with this whole thing - Phelps was picketing the funerals of gays for years and they did nothing. All of a sudden it becomes "bad" and something to ban when he does it to soldiers.

The hypocrisy is sickening. If he can do it at the funerals of gay people, he should be able to do it at the funeral of a soldier - gay or straight. I hope he wins.

I'd say that he shouldn't be able to do it at *any* funerals. And, while the law was most likelly passed with such hypocrisy, it does state that protests must stay away from funerals, not specifically away from soldier's funerals.


IMHO the only speech that should be restricted is that which can be shown to be easily and directly shown to endanger others personal safety (Such as yelling fire in a crowded building)

So it would be perfectly acceptable for me to stand outside your house (on the sidewalk, of course) with a bullhorn at 1 in the morning yelling, "You're going to hell!! How dare you be a part of a country that supports homosexuals!!?!?! God will punish you in hell!" And you could do nothing if I did so?

Meanwhile, I'm fairly certain that having random strangers yell out to children, "Your mother/father is going to hell for supporting teh fags!" at their own parent's funeral is pretty harmful.

Despicable as the christian protesters are, they deserve their day in court.


No where does the bible give any believer the right to harass anyone else because of their beliefs. Phelps and his bunch serve hate first and foremost, and will be very surprised at judgement day.

I never said they weren't Christians. I simply pointed out that they do not represent all, or even most, Christians. They are an extreme fringe group, so you shouldn't refer to this small group as if Christians en masse are suing for the right to harrass people at funerals.



The difference, of course, being that "free speech zones" are designed specifically to keep politicians and the media from seeing them - making them *less* visible.



I'd say that he shouldn't be able to do it at *any* funerals. And, while the law was most likelly passed with such hypocrisy, it does state that protests must stay away from funerals, not specifically away from soldier's funerals.



So it would be perfectly acceptable for me to stand outside your house (on the sidewalk, of course) with a bullhorn at 1 in the morning yelling, "You're going to hell!! How dare you be a part of a country that supports homosexuals!!?!?! God will punish you in hell!" And you could do nothing if I did so?

Meanwhile, I'm fairly certain that having random strangers yell out to children, "Your mother/father is going to hell for supporting teh fags!" at their own parent's funeral is pretty harmful.


It should be your right to stand there saying that yes ... the bullhorn part is less about speech and more about public nusance

Much as I loath Fred Phelps and company; I found it interesting that the government couldn't be bothered with him protesting Gay funerals. Yet, they leaped to defend the integrity of soldier funerals.

You want freedom of speech and expression? It has to include assholes like Fred Phelps. His crime is far less then setting the rules for acceptable expression.

The suit names Nixon, Gov. Matt Blunt (R) and others as defendants.

The ACLU was founded as, and continues to be, a communist frontgroup. Almost no conservative defends Fred Phelps. They have an agenda and it is not to preserve the ideals of the American Revolution.

In you response to my post about ACLU clients, you named Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was never a client of the ACLU. Do you need it written in crayon?

Keep up the less than adequate work though...

The point is Sally, the Liberal America-Destroying Terrorists at ACLU spoke up on behalf of Mr. Limpballs when it wouldn't have done them any good to begin with, but they did. Kind of puts a crimp on your Bushevik fantasies and you trying a "He Did not Have Any Litigatious Relationship With That Group" Special Pleading Fallacy is typical considering you were probably one of the first baboons to howl at Clinton trying to define a Sexual Relationship during Whitewater.

So it would be perfectly acceptable for me to stand outside your house (on the sidewalk, of course) with a bullhorn at 1 in the morning yelling, "You're going to hell!! How dare you be a part of a country that supports homosexuals!!?!?! God will punish you in hell!" And you could do nothing if I did so?

There's a guy on my campus who does exactly that. On nice warm days you can walk past the free speech area and hear him condemning every single passerby to Hell. Of course, he still has to deal with us smartass students, since nothing stops us from interrupting him and arguing right back. It makes a great free lunchtime entertainment.

The ACLU was founded as, and continues to be, a communist frontgroup. Almost no conservative defends Fred Phelps. They have an agenda and it is not to preserve the ideals of the American Revolution.

Almost no conservative speaks up to condemn him either. If Muslims that don't scream and shout about how evil Jihadis are are in fact supporting them, we can logically conclude that any conservative that doesn't scream and shout about how evil Fred Phelps is in fact supports him.

Almost no conservative speaks up to condemn him either. If Muslims that don't scream and shout about how evil Jihadis are are in fact supporting them, we can logically conclude that any conservative that doesn't scream and shout about how evil Fred Phelps is in fact supports him.

Great example of logic gone horribly, horribly, wrong there.

I'd get stabbed with a picket sign if I ever went to one of those funerals. I think you can guess as to why.

Almost no conservative speaks up to condemn him either. If Muslims that don't scream and shout about how evil Jihadis are are in fact supporting them, we can logically conclude that any conservative that doesn't scream and shout about how evil Fred Phelps is in fact supports him.
How can one possibly type that out, look at it say "Yeah, that sounds perfectly reasonable" and then hit 'submit reply'

In you response to my post about ACLU clients, you named Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was never a client of the ACLU. Do you need it written in crayon?

Keep up the less than adequate work though...

If they are for the destruction of the US as you so claim then they would not have supported somebody that bashed them.

It helps to remove the blinders sometimes.

How can one possibly type that out, look at it say "Yeah, that sounds perfectly reasonable" and then hit 'submit reply'

Isn't that what you just did?

How is it wrong? I have heard the argument a few times that since they are not speaking out against terrorists they support terrorists.....

Well I've never heard you denounce Ernzt Kalltenbruener, so you must support him ;) Didn't your parents ever teach you two wrongs don't make a right? "But he used the same stupid argument" is not a very good defense of your logic.

It should be your right to stand there saying that yes ... the bullhorn part is less about speech and more about public nusance

You wouldn't hear me if I didn't use the bullhorn. Of course, when you get up in the morning, I won't need the bullhorn. I can get right up in your face and say it.

There's a guy on my campus who does exactly that. On nice warm days you can walk past the free speech area and hear him condemning every single passerby to Hell. Of course, he still has to deal with us smartass students, since nothing stops us from interrupting him and arguing right back. It makes a great free lunchtime entertainment.

And you also could have completely avoided him, if that was your choice.

Well I've never heard you denounce Ernzt Kalltenbruener, so you must support him ;) Didn't your parents ever teach you two wrongs don't make a right? "But he used the same stupid argument" is not a very good defense of your logic.
Um that’s what the poster your quoted was trying to point out … that’s what I took from the post you quoted. It was a “if we extend your stupid logic …” sort of post

Sorry you missed it

Well I've never heard you denounce Ernzt Kalltenbruener, so you must support him ;) Didn't your parents ever teach you two wrongs don't make a right? "But he used the same stupid argument" is not a very good defense of your logic.


Eww now that is an obscure Godwin! :)

You wouldn't hear me if I didn't use the bullhorn. Of course, when you get up in the morning, I won't need the bullhorn. I can get right up in your face and say it.


snip.
Yup you could ... personaly far better for that to happen then for us to start restricting where people have the right to say something

I'm terribly sorry then. I just came into this thread and it seemed to have been seriously arguing that position. I agree that the argument "Liberals never talk about how they hate the terrorists" is a stupid one.

Eww now that is an obscure Godwin!
I pride myself on obscure Godwins :D

Much as I loath Fred Phelps and company; I found it interesting that the government couldn't be bothered with him protesting Gay funerals. Yet, they leaped to defend the integrity of soldier funerals.

You want freedom of speech and expression? It has to include assholes like Fred Phelps. His crime is far less then setting the rules for acceptable expression.

Anyhow! Let the bitching commence!

Sorry for the cut and past but the Post wants logins:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials

By Garance Burke
Associated Press
Sunday, July 23, 2006; Page A02

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality.

The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps say God is allowing troops, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gay men and lesbians.

Missouri lawmakers were spurred to action after members of the church protested in St. Joseph, Mo., last August at the funeral of Army Spec. Edward L. Myers.

The law bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. Offenders can face fines and jail time.

A number of other state laws and a federal law, signed in May by President Bush, bar such protests within a certain distance of a cemetery or funeral.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message. It is asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and to issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced, which would allow the group to resume picketing.

"I told the nation, as each state went after these laws, that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps's daughter Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the church in Topeka, Kan. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."

Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said, "We're not going to acquiesce to anything that they're asking for in this lawsuit."

The suit names Nixon, Gov. Matt Blunt (R) and others as defendants.Well, I believe this to be harrasment, but if you get past that, I'm fine with this as long as it gives us the right to protest at his and his loved ones funerals.

Yup you could ... personaly far better for that to happen then for us to start restricting where people have the right to say something

I disagree. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Your right to freedom of speech ends when it becomes harrassment - and following to my home, to my husband's funeral, or to my workplace specifically to tell me that I/my husband am going to hell is harrassment, plain and simple.

I'm terribly sorry then. I just came into this thread and it seemed to have been seriously arguing that position. I agree that the argument "Liberals never talk about how they hate the terrorists" is a stupid one.


I pride myself on obscure Godwins :D
No problem I have been around here for so long .. lol I kind of got a feeling for a lot of posters

Hold on, just realized something. Couldn't the protest be considered an intrusion on private property and thus illegal? You can still protest, you just need to stay veeeeery far away.

I disagree. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Your right to freedom of speech ends when it becomes harrassment - and following to my home, to my husband's funeral, or to my workplace specifically to tell me that I/my husband am going to hell is harrassment, plain and simple.
The home I can see as you own said property even though it is un-reasonable to push this right to completely control what sound enters your home. But a funeral does not take place on your property usually

I mean I can see private cemeteries disallowing entrance to protestors but when you are out in public there is a much lesser right to controlling what you hear

Hold on, just realized something. Couldn't the protest be considered an intrusion on private property and thus illegal? You can still protest, you just need to stay veeeeery far away.
Yes if it is on private property said property owner has the right to say who comes on their property

The home I can see as you own said property even though it is un-reasonable to push this right to completely control what sound enters your home. But a funeral does not take place on your property usually

I mean I can see private cemeteries disallowing entrance to protestors but when you are out in public there is a much lesser right to controlling what you hear

It isn't a matter of property. It is a matter of protestors finding and singling out individual citizens (who do have a right to privacy) in private situations - singling them out so that they cannot get away from the speech (no, I don't consider it a choice when the choice is "be harrassed or miss your loved one's funeral). You have the right to say whatever you want - yes. But you only have that right insofar as I can turn and walk away - not being forced to hear it.

The ACLU was founded as, and continues to be, a communist frontgroup. Almost no conservative defends Fred Phelps. They have an agenda and it is not to preserve the ideals of the American Revolution.

Bushevik, Please...

:D

Here's a little bit of history lesson for ya:

The American Revolution erupted when the colonists had enough of being pushed around and treated like criminals by a delusional and obstinate King George. Now it looks like we've come around full circle, not that you're noticing this irony, much less complaining about it.

It isn't a matter of property. It is a matter of protestors finding and singling out individual citizens (who do have a right to privacy) in private situations - singling them out so that they cannot get away from the speech (no, I don't consider it a choice when the choice is "be harrassed or miss your loved one's funeral). You have the right to say whatever you want - yes. But you only have that right insofar as I can turn and walk away - not being forced to hear it.
You have the right to spit in the man's face. You have that right, and even if it is criminal, what cop is going to enforce that? (I don't think that is criminal, and if it is it is at worst a misdemeanor).

A far-left group defending the rights of uber-fundamentalists?! Yaarrrgh, does...not...compute!
*brain explodes*

A far-left group defending the rights of uber-fundamentalists?! Yaarrrgh, does...not...compute!
*brain explodes*

The extremes are closer together than they are to the norms of each side.

You have the right to spit in the man's face. You have that right, and even if it is criminal, what cop is going to enforce that? (I don't think that is criminal, and if it is it is at worst a misdemeanor).

Do you guys have the charge of assault and battery?

As disrespectful as they are, they are't infringing on the rights of anybody, so in my book they can protest all they want. I don't agree with them in any way, but they do have the right to protest. As far as I know they do it in a pretty peaceful manner, so whatever.

A far-left group defending the rights of uber-fundamentalists?! Yaarrrgh, does...not...compute!
*brain explodes*
You really need to get past this whole, right left spectrum.
The ACLU are advocates of civil rights and liberties.
Phelps and co. are having their liberties denied. It make perfect sense.

Do you guys have the charge of assault and battery?
I don't think spitting at someone is considered assault. I'm no lawyer, so if it is, I withdraw my statement.

I don't think spitting at someone is considered assault. I'm no lawyer, so if it is, I withdraw my statement.

In the UK, spitting on someone is battery, not assault, and these laws tend to be pretty similar between the UK and US.

You have the right to spit in the man's face. You have that right, and even if it is criminal, what cop is going to enforce that? (I don't think that is criminal, and if it is it is at worst a misdemeanor).

No you don't, that's called a battery. It's illegal, and typically a felony.

I don't think spitting at someone is considered assault. I'm no lawyer, so if it is, I withdraw my statement.

It's not considered assault.

Assault is attempting to make contact with someone and MISSING. If you TRIED to spit on him, and MISSED, that's assault.

Trying, and succeeding, to spit on someone is battery.

In the UK, spitting on someone is battery, not assault, and these laws tend to be pretty similar between the UK and US.
Hmm...I will look into this.

I'm intrigued by how many seemingly American posters believe in the ABSOLUTE right to free speech, regardless of the potential consequnces.

where do you stand on slander/libel? am i entitled to call my former teacher a peado under this blanket? falsely accuse someone of thef? or malicious acts? make false bombscares? heavy breathe down a phone? why have you given the right to people to harass?

if the answer is no to any of the above, there are accepted limits to free speech and why can these goons carry on like this?

in ireland it would be very simple, you have of course the right to protest, but 'disrupting public worship' is a criminal offence, so if the funeral has a religious aspect to it the protestors would be ordered to disperse. and very few would feel their freedoms have been impinged.

I like to shout "Fire!" in crowded theatres.

It's not considered assault.

Assault is attempting to make contact with someone and MISSING. If you TRIED to spit on him, and MISSED, that's assault.

Trying, and succeeding, to spit on someone is battery.

Close, if you attempted and missed and he saw, it would be assault. If you missed and he didn't see, it isn't a crime. Assault if the fear that the person feels before contact, hence;

If I punched you in the face and your eyes are open it is assault and battery.

If I punched you in the face and your eyes are closed it is battery.

If I tried to punch you in the face and missed and your eyes are open it is assault.

If I tried to punch you in the face and missed and your eyes are closed it is not a crime.

EDIT: Disclaimer - This English law and so may be slightly different.

I'm intrigued by how many seemingly American posters believe in the ABSOLUTE right to free speech, regardless of the potential consequnces.

where do you stand on slander/libel? am i entitled to call my former teacher a peado under this blanket? falsely accuse someone of thef? or malicious acts? make false bombscares? heavy breathe down a phone? why have you given the right to people to harass?.

Actually defamation is typically a civil crime, not a criminal one. You can not be STOPPED from saying it, but you are held accountable for the reprocussions of you saying it.

Now of course there are limitations (bomb threats etc) in which the state has a compelling interest in restricting that right. You'd have to argue a compelling state interest in this case, and I'm not sure there is one.

Close, if you attempted and missed and he saw, it would be assault. If you missed and he didn't see, it isn't a crime. Assault if the fear that the person feels before contact, hence;



I was being overly simplistic, but yes technically you are correct, assault is defined as "an attempt to make harmful or nefarious contact that results in a feeling of apprehention in the intended victim."

If you want to get REAL technical, it's "apprehention", not fear, heh.

I do need to say, that if a friend or relative of mine were to die in the war and that group attended the funeral I dont think i would be able to restrain myself from giving them a serious crack upside the face with a tire iron or half brick in a sock. Hell, If I knocked them all out I doubt any of my friends would act as witnesses against me. they would just say "he was just standing at the funeral mourning and a tree fell on those protesters" or, in the extreme "nope.. never saw what happened to those guys.. one minute they were there yellin and the next there were just signs. Then I would just need to find some chickenwire and concrete. I'm sorry, but protesting at funerals of people who fought and died for the country that you live in. People who stood for the freedoms that you are enjoying and abusing.. should be given respect.

I was being overly simplistic, but yes technically you are correct, assault is defined as "an attempt to make harmful or nefarious contact that results in a feeling of apprehention in the intended victim."

If you want to get REAL technical, it's "apprehention", not fear, heh.

I like things to be close to right, just not enough to get one of my textbook from the other room for an exact definition. :)

I wholeheartedly support the right of the ACLU and the Phelpsians to sue to get this law removed. All the same, I am of the opinion that they should face harrassment charges, what they're doing is morally reprehensible, and lord have mercy should I ever come across those bastards at a funeral.

Actually defamation is typically a civil crime, not a criminal one. You can not be STOPPED from saying it, but you are held accountable for the reprocussions of you saying it.

Now of course there are limitations (bomb threats etc) in which the state has a compelling interest in restricting that right. You'd have to argue a compelling state interest in this case, and I'm not sure there is one.

surely the state could argue, as the Irish one does, that freedom to worship and in this case bury the dead, is an absolute and no-one has the right to disrupt that. there is your compelling case.

Almost no conservative speaks up to condemn him either. If Muslims that don't scream and shout about how evil Jihadis are are in fact supporting them, we can logically conclude that any conservative that doesn't scream and shout about how evil Fred Phelps is in fact supports him.

Gauthier, that's because conservatives aren't on the networks to which you listen (BBC/NPR). Sean Hannity took time to viciously smite Shirley Phelps-Roper.

surely the state could argue, as the Irish one does, that freedom to worship and in this case bury the dead, is an absolute and no-one has the right to disrupt that. there is your compelling case.

Error and incorrect. The constitution protects only the state from preventing your freedom of worship, not private interaction.

The state has not defined the absolute right to freedom of worship without any interruption, only that the state will pass no law preventing it.

Error and incorrect. The constitution protects only the state from preventing your freedom of worship, not private interaction.

The state has not defined the absolute right to freedom of worship without any interruption, only that the state will pass no law preventing it.

Exactly how far does this protction from the state extend? For example, could a local council refuse planning permission for all mosques? I wouldn't be preventing worship, just the construction of buildings used to worship.

Gauthier, that's because conservatives aren't on the networks to which you listen (BBC/NPR). Sean Hannity took time to viciously smite Shirley Phelps-Roper.
I hear conservatives all the time on NPR.

Exactly how far does this protction from the state extend? For example, could a local council refuse planning permission for all mosques? I wouldn't be preventing worship, just the construction of buildings used to worship.

It...depends. Mainly on the target of the purpose. For instance, if a council says "no buildings over 2 feet tall" and has legitimate reasons for this which is not aimed at religion but has the effect of prohibiting the construction of mosques, then this is fine.

The state as a general rule however can not discriminate on the basis of religion without COMPELLING state interest. In other words, they can do it, however they have to have a REALLY REALLY good reason for it, and ONLY this form of discrimination would meet their goal (no nondiscriminatory method to achieve the same goal).

Error and incorrect. The constitution protects only the state from preventing your freedom of worship, not private interaction.

The state has not defined the absolute right to freedom of worship without any interruption, only that the state will pass no law preventing it.

fraid not, its a criminal offence to disrupt a church service. cant find the act as my law bukes are elsewhere, but im 100% on that

fraid not, its a criminal offence to disrupt a church service. cant find the act as my law bukes are elsewhere, but im 100% on that
Care to show us THAT law?

It...depends. Mainly on the target of the purpose. For instance, if a council says "no buildings over 2 feet tall" and has legitimate reasons for this which is not aimed at religion but has the effect of prohibiting the construction of mosques, then this is fine.

The state as a general rule however can not discriminate on the basis of religion without COMPELLING state interest. In other words, they can do it, however they have to have a REALLY REALLY good reason for it, and ONLY this form of discrimination would meet their goal (no nondiscriminatory method to achieve the same goal).

Really should take a class on American constitutional law at some point. I'm love how complicated and emotive it gets but it's difficult to get a discussion going about it in the UK.

Gauthier, that's because conservatives aren't on the networks to which you listen (BBC/NPR). Sean Hannity took time to viciously smite Shirley Phelps-Roper.
Yes he did ... showed how bad he was at being a true reporter rather then a pundit he is. No interview skills at all.

Care to show us THAT law?
I found a law in Florida on Google about disrupting a funeral service but then I got lazy and lost interest.

Really should take a class on American constitutional law at some point.

Was that comment directed at me, or yourself? If for yourself...you should, it's interesting to see how such a relativly short constitution can have such a complex history.

If directed at me...I assure you, I have...

Was that comment directed at me, or yourself? If for yourself...you should, it's interesting to see how such a relativly short constitution can have such a complex history.

If directed at me...I assure you, I have...

Directed at myself. I'm studying law at the moment.

fraid not, its a criminal offence to disrupt a church service. cant find the act as my law bukes are elsewhere, but im 100% on that

But that's not what you said. You said the government could define the right to worship without interruption as absolute and not to be infringed upon.

The government has not done that, ever, and it would be very hard to start now, especially in the face of rights that HAVE been established.

Care to show us THAT law?

im looking for it, but its basically to stop the local catholic priest picketing the protestant church.

Geneva Convention, so not applicible in the US...Article 53—Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship

Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited:

(a) to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;

ill try and dig out the wording of the Irish law.

If I ran into that group at a funeral, I'd be arrested because I'd be the ****ing Crap out of Phelps. I hope someone snaps and does do that to him he deserves it.

I wonder if his little group realizes that the New Iraqi government has a high chance on punishing Gays? So to him replacing the Non Religious Government with a Theocracy is a good thing, cause they'll kill all the evil geys.

im looking for it, but its basically to stop the local catholic priest picketing the protestant church.

....

ill try and dig out the wording of the Irish law.

Well if this is IRISH law it has no baring on American law...

If I ran into that group at a funeral, I'd be arrested because I'd be the ****ing Crap out of Phelps.

That's how the Poltergeist Cult- er I mean the Westborough Baptist Church makes money. They picket funereals then when someone lashes out at them they sue for damages.

But that's not what you said. You said the government could define the right to worship without interruption as absolute and not to be infringed upon.

The government has not done that, ever, and it would be very hard to start now, especially in the face of rights that HAVE been established.

no, i said the government here protect your right to public worship without being harrassed or interfered with, by the state or others.

ie Phelps would be arrested outside a cemetary in Dublin for 'disruption of public worship' and probably a whole lot of section 8 trumped up charges too.

Well if this is IRISH law it has no baring on American law...

hence i said thats how we would deal with a situation like thathere. christ on a bicylce were you even reading what i posted.

we are a western democracy with constitutional freedom of expression that has a legal avenue to stop that kind of mentalist harrasing funeral parties. im sure american legislators could enshrine freedom of worship if they really wanted to.

That's how the Poltergeist Cult- er I mean the Westborough Baptist Church makes money. They picket funereals then when someone lashes out at them they sue for damages.
Isn't there a risk of you know, running into a distraught father and dying??? I doubt Phelps would profit off of his death.

no, i said the government here protect your right to public worship without being harrassed or interfered with, by the state or others.

ie Phelps would be arrested outside a cemetary in Dublin for 'disruption of public worship' and probably a whole lot of section 8 trumped up charges too.

Yes, but that law is in Dublin. There's no indiciation that this would be legal in the United States. Entirely different legal systems.

Engaging in Homosexual sodomy in Zimbabwe is illegal, it's not in the United States. Just because one nation does it doesn't mean another can. The united states has constitutional limitations that may not exist in ireland.

And to prove my point...

http://www.geocities.com/cyber.bunny/kane-phelps.jpg

Yes, but that law is in Dublin. There's no indiciation that this would be legal in the United States. Entirely different legal systems.

Engaging in Homosexual sodomy in Zimbabwe is illegal, it's not in the United States. Just because one nation does it doesn't mean another can. The united states has constitutional limitations that may not exist in ireland.

THATS WHY I SAID IT WAS THE LAW HERE AND NOT THERE. ITS HOW ANOTHER COUNTRY WITH A SIMILAR LEGAL SYSTEM WOULD PREVENT THESE PROTESTS.

its profound rude to reply to someone without even reading what they wrote and why they wrote it.

and our legal systems are both anglo saxon ones inherited from the british with written constitutions (although ours is much more detailed)

THATS WHY I SAID IT WAS THE LAW HERE AND NOT THERE. ITS HOW ANOTHER COUNTRY WITH A SIMILAR LEGAL SYSTEM WOULD PREVENT THESE PROTESTS.

its profound rude to reply to someone without even reading what they wrote and why they wrote it.

and our legal systems are both anglo saxon ones inherited from the british with written constitutions (although ours is much more detailed)

Dude, chill. You said this is something the US could do. I said you were wrong, for various reasons. To which you replied:

fraid not, its a criminal offence to disrupt a church service. cant find the act as my law bukes are elsewhere, but im 100% on that

This is where you go wierd. I said it couldn't be done under the US constitution, you said "afraid not, you're wrong" and then cited a law that is NOT in the United States.

Dude, chill. You said this is something the US could do. I said you were wrong, for various reasons. To which you replied:



This is where you go wierd. I said it couldn't be done under the US constitution, you said "afraid not, you're wrong" and then cited a law that is NOT in the United States.

in my very first post i explicitly stated i was talking about Irish law, and i stated it was how and waht the situation would be here if someone protested at a religious service. you then talked about "the constitution". not the "US constitution". so logically it was safe to assume you were referring to the Irish one.

in ireland it would be very simple, you have of course the right to protest, but 'disrupting public worship' is a criminal offence, so if the funeral has a religious aspect to it the protestors would be ordered to disperse. and very few would feel their freedoms have been impinged.

apologies to everyone who has just wasted their time reading through that because arthais didnt bother reading or couldnt figure out what the phrases 'in Ireland' or 'Irish law' means. or doesnt realise other countries have laws and the like. :rolleyes:

No where does the bible give any believer the right to harass anyone else because of their beliefs. Phelps and his bunch serve hate first and foremost, and will be very surprised at judgement day.

I hate to derail this thread, but why can you say that Phelps is going to hell, when Phelps can't say that gays are going to hell?

Seems like each of you are on equal ground with that one.

in my very first post i explicitly stated i was talking about Irish law, and i stated it was how and waht the situation would be here if someone protested at a religious service. you then talked about "the constitution". not the "US constitution". so logically it was safe to assume you were referring to the Irish one.

I would say that in a thread talking about the AMERICAN civil liberties union that the discussion would be about the US constitution.

That being said, I can see where we both went on a miscommunication here, so no harm done. We were just talking about different constitutions, which is why I suppose we didn't make sense to each other, heh.

Sorry for the confusion, no harm done.

no probs.

Sense when do we have the right to not be offended?

I'm just waiting for the day when the ex-partner of a dead gay person decks one of the evil bastards in one punch.

Yes it's wrong.. but then so is what Phelps & Co are doing. It'd be worth the lawsuit. ;)

I'm just waiting for the day when the ex-partner of a dead gay person decks one of the evil bastards in one punch.

Yes it's wrong.. but then so is what Phelps & Co are doing. It'd be worth the lawsuit. ;)

is there a jury in the US that would convict the widow of a soldier thumping phelps?

can american judges give damages of 1c and award costs to the losing side like they do in Europe to stop nonsense suits?

I'm just waiting for the day when the ex-partner of a dead gay person decks one of the evil bastards in one punch.

Yes it's wrong.. but then so is what Phelps & Co are doing. It'd be worth the lawsuit. ;)
That I can agree with

Couldn't the people at the funeral call the police like neighbours do when there is a loud party next door?

Very good work, ACLU.

Once again touching something far too un-PC for any politician.

Despicable as the christian protesters are, they deserve their day in court.

It's called due process.
Seconded. A free society without freedom of speech is a self-contradiction.

Seconded. A free society without freedom of speech is a self-contradiction.

you would say that. you are a paedophile.






you get my point.......?

you would say that. you are a paedophile.






you get my point.......?
No, I don't. You just made a claim you cannot back. You have the right to do so. Now you'd have to prove it, or be seen as a fraud.

Seconded. A free society without freedom of speech is a self-contradiction.

This is tricky though, as free speech is useful as a criticism of government and societal institutions. One should always an open forum to register grievances.

This situation on the other hand, doesn't appear to be a useful criticism, rather it appears to be a targeting, degrading, and direct confrontation of certain groups of people.

I say it is harrassment.

Fred Phelps is using the ACLU? Doesn't he have some kind of moral problem with that?

This is tricky though, as free speech is useful as a criticism of government and societal institutions. One should always an open forum to register grievances.

This situation on the other hand, doesn't appear to be a useful criticism, rather it appears to be a targeting, degrading, and direct confrontation of certain groups of people.

I say it is harrassment.
Then let them prove it in court and show how they were damaged. Banning such speech from the outset, however, is a sham in a truly liberal nation.

No, I don't. You just made a claim you cannot back. You have the right to do so. Now you'd have to prove it, or be seen as a fraud.

preciscley my point.

phelps cannot back the claim that the soldier in the box is 'faeces eating fag' as he so eloquently puts it as much as i can back up my ludicrious claim about you.

freedom of speech is never absolute. why is this harrassment being tolerated?

preciscley my point.

phelps cannot back the claim that the soldier in the box is 'faeces eating fag' as he so eloquently puts it as much as i can back up my ludicrious claim about you.

freedom of speech is never absolute. why is this harrassment being tolerated?
It is incumbent upon the victims of the harassment then to prove how it has damaged them, in sufficient terms, be they psychological, physiological or material. The freedom of speech ends where it begins to cause harm...but then, said harm must be proven.

It is incumbent upon the victims of the harassment then to prove how it has damaged them, in sufficient terms, be they psychological, physiological or material. The freedom of speech ends where it begins to cause harm...but then, said harm must be proven.
God me and you agree on something!

It is incumbent upon the victims of the harassment then to prove how it has damaged them, in sufficient terms, be they psychological, physiological or material. The freedom of speech ends where it begins to cause harm...but then, said harm must be proven.

and protesting at a funeral that god killed them because they were 'faeces eating fag lovers' doens't cause psychological harm to the grieving?

its not about agreeing with phelps or not. its about being able to perform a religious service without another religion disrupting it using sexual expletives.

and protesting at a funeral that god killed them because they were 'faeces eating fag lovers' doens't cause psychological harm to the grieving?

its not about agreeing with phelps or not. its about being able to perform a religious service without another religion disrupting it using sexual expletives.
Then they broke the rule and they should be individual sued ...

What should NOT be done is to change the laws and restrict everyone elses rights because of some idiots

and protesting at a funeral that god killed them because they were 'faeces eating fag lovers' doens't cause psychological harm to the grieving?

its not about agreeing with phelps or not. its about being able to perform a religious service without another religion disrupting it using sexual expletives.
The courts will decide this on the balance of evidence provided. Phelps is a nuissance. This doesn't mean the freedom of speech should be undermined...no, what should be done is that it should be made absolutely clear that it is harassment, and not the principle itself, that is on trial.

God me and you agree on something!
We don't usually? It's been a while since I've been on.

I think that we are allowed to say 'I don't like THESE people'
but not 'I don't like THESE people, lets cause them harm'
The point of psychological harm has been brought up. But does that count?

We don't usually? It's been a while since I've been on.
Don’t know maybe I was thinking of someone else … seem to remember it being on a Anne Coulter thread … but I may just be confused

(what was funny is that I am tired and could not think of her name so I searched “right wing batshit woman” and it came up in the first page)

Then let them prove it in court and show how they were damaged. Banning such speech from the outset, however, is a sham in a truly liberal nation.

I certainly would not deny them their day in court.

The courts will decide this on the balance of evidence provided. Phelps is a nuissance. This doesn't mean the freedom of speech should be undermined...no, what should be done is that it should be made absolutely clear that it is harassment, and not the principle itself, that is on trial.

but this is the crux of it for me. what part of 'freedom of speech' gives me the right to harass others using overly sexual language?

we all agree that to some extent freedom of speech is curtailed by the state

-advertising has to be accurate
-fire in a theater
-europa maxima abuses children, i have proof etc etc

we all know the basic arguments, its a question of extent. why not simply ban this type of 'protest'. it doesnt undermine genuine freedom of expression. it stops intimidation of people at a funeral.

Don’t know maybe I was thinking of someone else … seem to remember it being on a Anne Coulter thread … but I may just be confused

(what was funny is that I am tired and could not think of her name so I searched “right wing batshit woman” and it came up in the first page)
Ah yes, I like Ms Coulter. Maybe that is what we disagreed on.

we all know the basic arguments, its a question of extent. why not simply ban this type of 'protest'. it doesnt undermine genuine freedom of expression. it stops intimidation of people at a funeral.
Then let the courts decide alone. No need for a ban. Future protestors will be dissuaded from a past court decision which punishes their kind of behaviour. It is time people put more faith into individual responsibility...enough with the nanny states.

why not simply ban this type of 'protest'. it doesnt undermine genuine freedom of expression. it stops intimidation of people at a funeral.
Agreed. Protests are already regulated in order to preserve order; this type just shouldn't be allowed because it harasses people in mourning, and is not necessary in order to preserve the overall right to protest. There are limits on all freedoms, and the right to protest is no different.

Then let the courts decide alone. No need for a ban. Future protestors will be dissuaded from a past court decision which punishes their kind of behaviour. It is time people put more faith into individual responsibility...enough with the nanny states.

i wonder are you as laisse faire about anti-capitalist protestors on the hoof?

i wonder are you as laisse faire about anti-capitalist protestors on the hoof?
On the hoof? I detest them, no doubt, yet they have the right to voice their inane opinions.

On the hoof? I detest them, no doubt, yet they have the right to voice their inane opinions.

up to scampish antics. the point im making is this seems to have caused no end of confusion to the american right. whats more important, your military culture or your wacky christian extremist ways.

the same people who are unsure what way to swing on phelps get the popcorn in whan the cops leather into lefties. the right to aggressive prostest seems to be preserved for the right.

up to scampish antics. the point im making is this seems to have caused no end of confusion to the american right. whats more important, your military culture or your wacky christian extremist ways.

the same people who are unsure what way to swing on phelps get the popcorn in whan the cops leather into lefties. the right to aggressive prostest seems to be preserved for the right.

Christainity is wonderful. For the 15% of Americans who are non-Christians, and the fallen away "Christians," we need evangelization.

If you are Jew, you can either be evangelized, or at least believe your own faith, which is wonderful, and find a good tradtional orthodox synagogue.

up to scampish antics. the point im making is this seems to have caused no end of confusion to the american right. whats more important, your military culture or your wacky christian extremist ways.

the same people who are unsure what way to swing on phelps get the popcorn in whan the cops leather into lefties. the right to aggressive prostest seems to be preserved for the right.
Well I am against acts of aggression...that is where it stops being "freedom of speech" and turns into something wholly barbarous. I hold the same standards for individuals of both left- and right-wing predilections.

Fuck the ACLU

Though I'm against the ACLU in beliefs, I'll give them credit of being one of the few no bullshit institutions left in America. They have the correct interperetation of the constitution, and they don't back down to nobody. I salute you ACLU, you may be defending a bad Idea, but your defending nobley.

Fuck the ACLU
Pithy and appropriate.

Fuck the ACLU
Lol and they would fight for your right to say that too lol

Though I'm against the ACLU in beliefs, I'll give them credit of being one of the few no bullshit institutions left in America. They have the correct interperetation of the constitution, and they don't back down to nobody. I salute you ACLU, you may be defending a bad Idea, but your defending nobley.

They do not have the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

They were founded to help subvert the true Constitution because it posed a problem for a future communist revolution.

Founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin:

Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise. Too many people have already gotten the idea that it is nine-tenths a Socialist movement... We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.

Pithy and appropriate.

And about the only realistic response from one of the many Defenders of Dear Leader on NS General. But hey, it's your right to say it and if someone tries to shut you up... you can count on the ACLU to defend your right to say "Fuck Them."

Ah, irony.

:D

YAY ACLU!

Now, if they would only change their stance towards the 2nd Amendment, I would be ecstatic. But even so, the ACLU is cool.

YAY ACLU!

Now, if they would only change their stance towards the 2nd Amendment, I would be ecstatic. But even so, the ACLU is cool.


Their stance towards that second amendment is simple: it is not under threat, it is very well protected by others.

I am a member of both the ACLU and the NRA, each has an important role.

If anything, it's the ACLU that's using Phelps. Regardless of the outcome, it's going to increase the understanding of what free speech is. Who knows?

As far as Fred Phelps goes? The man's spent his whole life rebuking Satan. Hopefully he'll have the opportunity to do it face to face.

Their stance towards that second amendment is simple: it is not under threat, it is very well protected by others.

I am a member of both the ACLU and the NRA, each has an important role.

Agreed, the ACLU generally doesn't addres the 2nd amendment too much, they leave that to the NRA. The policy of the ACLU towards the 2nd is that it doesn't really have a policy towards the 2nd.

Agreed, the ACLU generally doesn't addres the 2nd amendment too much, they leave that to the NRA. The policy of the ACLU towards the 2nd is that it doesn't really have a policy towards the 2nd.

I agree completly, Arthais. Many modern scholars feel that owning a gun is a privelege, not a right, and that the Second Amendment only applies to the Army, so the ACLU does not intervene.

The ACLU is one of the few organizations that protects and defends the Constitution, at least the parts that are relevant in a modern society, and has done this since the early days of America.

The ACLU, and ultimately all of us, yearn for a day when the current immoral system of economic "uncivil" liberty is replaced with a cooperative model. This is what was intended by the Founders at the outset, but has been prevented by the wealthy since then.

We are lucky enough that we all should, at all times and in all places, research our common ancestor to confirm as fact that we will always have the ACLU.

Gauthier, that's because conservatives aren't on the networks to which you listen (BBC/NPR). Sean Hannity took time to viciously smite Shirley Phelps-Roper.
Once again, you reveal yourself to be completely phony purveyor of fake far-left crap. Haven't you had enough trolling? You have no idea what Gauthier listens to, and you say inflammatory stuff like that to make people think you're a loony liberal and therefore all liberals think like you. Fortunately, most NSers can think for themselves, and I'm wondering why you didn't take the time to figure that out before trying your pathetic ruse.

Get stuffed.

THATS WHY I SAID IT WAS THE LAW HERE AND NOT THERE. ITS HOW ANOTHER COUNTRY WITH A SIMILAR LEGAL SYSTEM WOULD PREVENT THESE PROTESTS.

its profound rude to reply to someone without even reading what they wrote and why they wrote it.

and our legal systems are both anglo saxon ones inherited from the british with written constitutions (although ours is much more detailed)
I think the problem is that your Jolt ID doesn't say you're from Ireland, and you've never actually stated you were. You've made a couple of oblique references and expected everyone to assume you're in Ireland. Don't get your Irish up if you're not going to be clear about where you post from.

That said, however, I know many posters who assume everyone here is from the US. It's almost refreshing to see someone assume we're all Irish. No worries.

and protesting at a funeral that god killed them because they were 'faeces eating fag lovers' doens't cause psychological harm to the grieving?

its not about agreeing with phelps or not. its about being able to perform a religious service without another religion disrupting it using sexual expletives.
The harm must be proven. If you are going to sue, the burden of proof is on you. Thing is, I don't know if anyone's actually sued Phelps on the grounds psychological damage. Regardless, that kind of suit could be brought.

I think that we are allowed to say 'I don't like THESE people'
but not 'I don't like THESE people, lets cause them harm'
The point of psychological harm has been brought up. But does that count?
Saying "let's cause them harm" is covered by one of the notable exceptions to free speech in legal precedent: incitement to riot. That's a no-no.

Their stance towards that second amendment is simple: it is not under threat, it is very well protected by others.

I am a member of both the ACLU and the NRA, each has an important role.
Yeah, if you say "Second Amendment" to people and then ask them to name the first organization that pops into their head, most will say "NRA." But try "First Amendment," and you'll get a lot of blank stares, along with a few people who say "ACLU."

I'm always amazed that there are people who oppose the ACLU. Liberal, conservative, why on Earth would you want to oppose an organization that is dedicated to protecting your civil liberties? Do you not want civil liberties?

The ACLU is a fifth column.

I think protesting at anyones' funeral should be illegal.

I'm not surprised. What I'm laughing at is the poor lawyers the ACLU is going to have to send to talk to Fred Phelps.

He'll probably give them the same rash of shit that he gives everyone else, except that in this case, they have to keep coming back day after day for more and more.

Sounds like punishment duty to me.

I am a member of both the ACLU and the NRA, each has an important role.
Does the cognitive dissonance ever get to you? :D

I'm always amazed that there are people who oppose the ACLU. Liberal, conservative, why on Earth would you want to oppose an organization that is dedicated to protecting your civil liberties? Do you not want civil liberties?

Correction: only the civil liberties it likes.

It never defends the 2nd, which is a civil liberty well discussed by the Founding Fathers.

I guess you don't have a problem with their selectivity.

Correction: only the civil liberties it likes.

It never defends the 2nd, which is a civil liberty well discussed by the Founding Fathers.

I guess you don't have a problem with their selectivity.
I addressed that in my post, and several other people have addressed it on this very page. The 2nd is not in danger, and already has a whole other organization devoted entirely to defending it. The ACLU makes the responsible and wise decision to defend those liberties which are being directly threatened. If the ACLU had an unlimited budget, I would hope they would expand their interests to cover a much wider range of case...since they don't, I believe it is appropriate for them to be selective about which cases they focus on.

Correction: only the civil liberties it likes.

It never defends the 2nd, which is a civil liberty well discussed by the Founding Fathers.

I guess you don't have a problem with their selectivity.
Well they do … but they keep with the original wording (you know the well regulated militia part)

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

Well they do … but they keep with the original wording (you know the well regulated militia part)

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

I've seen their argument, and it's piss poor.

I'm always amazed that there are people who oppose the ACLU?

I oppose the ACLU, they represent pedophiles and Fred Phelps.

They are more concerned with intefering in the war on islamo-facism and tearing the crosses off war memorials than doing the things that they should be doing, like working to abolish hate crime laws.

This is one of those times that you really wish that we still had dictators in the West. We're giving these freaks rights that they don't deserve.

Well they do … but they keep with the original wording (you know the well regulated militia part)

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

So out of the 10 ammendments, the only one that doesn't apply to the individual is the 2nd?

the ACLU is a bunch of anti-american commies.

So out of the 10 ammendments, the only one that doesn't apply to the individual is the 2nd?

Or the 9th. Or the 10th.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


One simply states that it is not all inclusive, the other states power reserved to the states, or the plurality of the people, which is not an individualistic notion at all.

So out of the 10 ammendments, the only one that doesn't apply to the individual is the 2nd?

Apparently, the ACLU says that "the people" means individuals in the other amendments, but "the people" means something else in the second.

They went to the same law school that says it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Apparently, the ACLU says that "the people" means individuals in the other amendments, but "the people" means something else in the second.

They went to the same law school that says it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Tell me how, as an INDIVIDUAL, I have the power to effect government.

The 10th amendment CLEARLY defines "people" as a collective unit of political power, not the individual.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The people, us, the collective.

Amendments 9 and 10.

Tell me how, as an INDIVIDUAL, I have the power to effect government.

The 10th amendment CLEARLY defines "people" as a collective unit of political power, not the individual.

The people, us, the collective.

Amendments 9 and 10.

Then I'm sure you'll be happy if we read the First as a collective right, and not an individual one.

Better get with a licensed group, or you'll be jailed for speaking as an individual.

Then I'm sure you'll be happy if we read the First as a collective right, and not an individual one.

Better get with a licensed group, or you'll be jailed for speaking as an individual.

Irrelevant argument. You said that all other of the bill or fights defines people as 1.

Look at the 10th amendment, which describes the powers of governance. Does Deep Kimchi have the power in the government as an individual? No. Does Deep Kimchi have the power to vote as a member of a collective? Yes.

YOU don't have any power reserved under the 10th. WE do. In that instance "the people" CLEARLY means, THE PEOPLE, not individuals.

Thus your argument is refuted, without ever having to go into the 1st amendment, I pointed to an amendment that by the wording of it, does not suggest it is something that YOU retain, or I retain, but the overall political power of THE PEOPLE.

I could argue the 9th amendment too, but that one is a lil harder, and is open to some easier counter arguments.

i don't need to define the 1st in that way to prove my point, I refute your argument by pointing to the 10th.

Irrelevant argument. You said that all other of the bill or fights defines people as 1.

Look at the 10th amendment, which describes the powers of governance. Does Deep Kimchi have the power in the government as an individual? No. Does Deep Kimchi have the power to vote as a member of a collective? Yes.

YOU don't have any power reserved under the 10th. WE do. In that instance "the people" CLEARLY means, THE PEOPLE, not individuals.

Thus your argument is refuted, without ever having to go into the 1st amendment, I pointed to an amendment that by the wording of it, does not suggest it is something that YOU retain, or I retain, but the overall political power of THE PEOPLE.

I could argue the 9th amendment too, but that one is a lil harder, and is open to some easier counter arguments.

i don't need to define the 1st in that way to prove my point, I refute your argument by pointing to the 10th.


Neither is "the people" = "the states".

If the 9th and 10th are collective "the people", it does not follow that the 2nd is also collective. Especially if you read the writings of the Founding Fathers.

Even if it is collective, that means we "the people" get to have weapons - because "the people" are not "the states" nor are we "the federal government".

Neither is "the people" = "the states".

If the 9th and 10th are collective "the people", it does not follow that the 2nd is also collective. Especially if you read the writings of the Founding Fathers.

Even if it is collective, that means we "the people" get to have weapons - because "the people" are not "the states" nor are we "the federal government".
Ok lets keep this from turning into a gun control thread … I personally agree with you but I was just pointing out that they have a different view on interpretation. Rather then shying away from it they just don’t interpret it the same way you do.

Ok lets keep this from turning into a gun control thread … I personally agree with you but I was just pointing out that they have a different view on interpretation. Rather then shying away from it they just don’t interpret it the same way you do.
The ACLU should stop saying that it is impartial or neutral when it most definitely is not.

Neither is "the people" = "the states".

If the 9th and 10th are collective "the people", it does not follow that the 2nd is also collective. Especially if you read the writings of the Founding Fathers.

Even if it is collective, that means we "the people" get to have weapons - because "the people" are not "the states" nor are we "the federal government".

No, perhaps it doesn't mean that, and true just becuase the 9th and 10th refer to a collective people it doesn't mean the 2nd does.

But it does refute the argument (which the poster above you made) that the ACLU considers the 2nd the ONLY time the collective "people" not the individual "person" is considered. the 10th, and arguably the 9th, refers to a collective.

Whether that has any baring (joke, get it?) on the 2nd is questionable, but it it is certainly incorrect to say that ALL OTHER amendments refer to "people" in an individualistic rights sense, the 10th clearly doesnt, the 9th arguably doesn't.

In other words, this was more a point of clarification then refutation. I think the ACLU, as a broader part, takes a more neutral approach. They have their beliefs on the 2nd amendment, but do not make it a point to overly advocate for such a point, mainly they leave that to the NRA.

The ACLU should stop saying that it is impartial or neutral when it most definitely is not.
How so … they have just withheld arguing for your interpretation rather then fighting FOR one side.

The ACLU should stop saying that it is impartial or neutral when it most definitely is not.

Although they may have opinion in fact, they are neutral in operation. They don't really deal with 2nd amendment issues, it's not what they do.

Would you find it inappropriate and unprofessional for an accountant to have an opinion on abortion? No, his ability to be an accountant is not impared by his opinions on abortion.

The ACLU may have an opinion on 2nd amendment issues, but they don't deal with 2nd amendment issues, thus remaining neutrality in operation. If thy don't defend certain positions in law, then they are not operating in one way or the other.

The generally let the NRA deal with that.

Btw, can someone tell me if there is a British Equvillant to the ACLU?
Because I want to join.

Much as I loath Fred Phelps and company; I found it interesting that the government couldn't be bothered with him protesting Gay funerals. Yet, they leaped to defend the integrity of soldier funerals.

You want freedom of speech and expression? It has to include assholes like Fred Phelps. His crime is far less then setting the rules for acceptable expression.

Clearly the Atheist Criminal Liberal Union's hatred for the US armed forces outweighs their slavish homophilia. Equally clearly, their support for any group that hates America and seeks to undermine and destroy American society can lead to occasional ironies.

Clearly the Atheist Criminal Liberal Union's hatred for the US armed forces outweighs their slavish homophilia. Equally clearly, their support for any group that hates America and seeks to undermine and destroy American society can lead to occasional ironies.
Lol I like you … a little less over the top and your post would not have appeared as much of a joke as it obviously was intended to be. Good job just enough English on that ball.

Does the cognitive dissonance ever get to you? :D



When it does I go out and shoot things ;)

Besides, one day I might have to shoot someone over a right besides the 2nd amendment ;)