[dcmacdaddy]

So, the Leftie, liberal, America-hating ACLU is at it again, defending the free speech rights of the Westboro Baptist church to protest at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. (Yes, that was intended to be smarmy.)

This is an example of why I like the ACLU; They are willing to defend everyone's Constitutional rights regardless of where the person/group stands in the political spectrum. I despise what the folks at Westboro Baptist Church are doing but I am glad the ACLU is there to defend their right to do it.


Article taken from here.

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.



© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Millennium]

Good. I hope they win too. I loathe the Westboro Baptists as much as anyone else, but law is not the proper way to deal with them. Their actions are profoundly rude and inconsiderate, to the point where one mighrt almost be able to classify them as true evil, but they are not so dire that it's worth sacrificing freedom of speech just to not have to deal with the real problem.

[greenG4]

A funeral is a private event. People have no business protesting a soldiers funeral. Do they think that is somehow "supporting the troops"? Yet another reason why I hate the ACLU. They better lose.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything, anytime, anywhere. Sorry.

[subego]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Do they think that is somehow "supporting the troops"?

Huh?

Originally Posted by greenG4

Yet another reason why I hate the ACLU.

Because they go to bat for assholes? I hope no one ever thinks you're an asshole.

Originally Posted by greenG4

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything, anytime, anywhere. Sorry.

However, in terms of precedent, it pretty much means you can peacefully engage in political speech (protest) on public property.

Even if you're a dick.






Especially if you're a dick.

[NYCFarmboy]

the ACLU continues to reach disgusting new lows.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by subego

Because they go to bat for assholes?

While a good reason, no. Because they defend things that are inexcusable, and twist the law.

Originally Posted by subego

However, in terms of precedent, it pretty much means you can peacefully engage in political speech (protest) on public property.

A cemetary is not public property. It is normally owned by someone, thus you must pay to ultimately use it. (When you're dead)

[ironknee]

can you imagine the first phone call?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

the ACLU continues to reach disgusting new lows.

Just wait until they defend the free speech rights of some group you support and then you might change your tune. That's the thing, they defend everyone's Constitutional rights, even sub-human scum like the folks at Westboro Baptist.

[smacintush]

I hope they lose too, it's about time that someone does something about those people who DARE to do and say things that you righteous assholes don't like.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

even sub-human scum like the folks at Westboro Baptist.

Hyperbolize much?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything, anytime, anywhere. Sorry.

Look up "freedom" and look up "speech" and you'll see that while it doesn't quite mean that, it's pretty close. Personally, I think people who would like to see it limited by the government should not speak out about it — you know, on principle..

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Hyperbolize much?

How about just plain-old "scum"? Is that too much hyperbole for you?

[Millennium]

As an addendum to my previous post, I'm not much of a fan of the ACLU either. I think they're a bunch of extremists, and worse, a bunch of hypocrites. But I'll give them credit for this much: what rights they do decide to defend, they defend when no one else will. More power to them for that.

[deej5871]

Many of you who support the ACLU in this situation say that while the Westboro Baptists are a bunch of scum, making a law is not the way to solve the problem. The question I have is, how do you suggest dealing with the Westboro Baptists? You've also gone the "what if it was you?" route saying that it's great that the ACLU defends the rights of even the assholes, because one day a group you support or even you yourself might be that asshole. Well what if the Westboro Baptists were at the funeral of someone you know, protesting? You have no legal basis for telling them to go away, after all, they're exercising their freedom of speech. They don't have to listen to you. So, what would/could you do?

That is my only real problem with this situation. I agree that it's not good to further restrict freedom of speech, however I don't see what else you could do.

[Kerrigan]

Does anyone think for a minute that the American Dream would suffer if vituperative homophobic terrorist sympathizers were silenced?

These idiots can still say whatever they want in Times Square or on the internet, but they need to be banned from getting anywhere near those funerals.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Many of you who support the ACLU in this situation say that while the Westboro Baptists are a bunch of scum, making a law is not the way to solve the problem. The question I have is, how do you suggest dealing with the Westboro Baptists? You've also gone the "what if it was you?" route saying that it's great that the ACLU defends the rights of even the assholes, because one day a group you support or even you yourself might be that asshole. Well what if the Westboro Baptists were at the funeral of someone you know, protesting? You have no legal basis for telling them to go away, after all, they're exercising their freedom of speech. They don't have to listen to you. So, what would/could you do?

That is my only real problem with this situation. I agree that it's not good to further restrict freedom of speech, however I don't see what else you could do.

Unfortunately, you would have to accept that fact that living in a country that values freedom of speech above all else you will have to listen to hateful speech at one of the most sorrowful moments in your life.

If you want to restrict their actions force groups like this to get a public gathering permit whenever they want to protest at a funeral. They are engaging in political speech so treat them like any other political group that wants to hold a rally, make them get a permit, scheduling when and where they will hold their protests and allow them to speak their piece in one little segment of the cemetery, preferably as far away from the actual funeral service as possible. They get to have their free speech rights preserved and the family of the dead soldier gets a modicum of peace when they are burying a loved one.

What interests me is why no one has not advocated a "counter-protest". I know there are the biker groups who try and form a human shield around the service but why don't more people on the community where these events are taking place come out and hold a vigil, using their free-speech rights to offer words of condolence to the family. I've said it numerous times, if the Westboro Baptist folks ever come anywhere near I am to protest I am going to be out there to oppose them (and probably throwing eggs at them as I will enjoy doing that).

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Many of you who support the ACLU in this situation say that while the Westboro Baptists are a bunch of scum, making a law is not the way to solve the problem. The question I have is, how do you suggest dealing with the Westboro Baptists? You've also gone the "what if it was you?" route saying that it's great that the ACLU defends the rights of even the assholes, because one day a group you support or even you yourself might be that asshole. Well what if the Westboro Baptists were at the funeral of someone you know, protesting? You have no legal basis for telling them to go away, after all, they're exercising their freedom of speech. They don't have to listen to you. So, what would/could you do?

That is my only real problem with this situation. I agree that it's not good to further restrict freedom of speech, however I don't see what else you could do.

This is the problem. This is a HUGE problem in many areas of our cry-baby, nursery-esque country. Somebody does something that others don't like and suddenly something must be "done" about it. We could try living in a society where people like this don't get the attention these people have been getting, but that won't happen. Conflict makes good entertainment.

Now, everyone could simply quit their whining and get over it. THAT'S the solution.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Does anyone think for a minute that the American Dream would suffer if vituperative homophobic terrorist sympathizers were silenced?

Much more than if people who oppose freedom of speech were silenced. Liberty is a two-edged sword. If you would like a Big Brother to protect you from unpleasant thoughts, there are lots of other countries for that.

That said, I'm just talking about free speech from a legal standpoint. On private property, the owner can limit speech all he wants.

[moodymonster]

I saw some vid of the WBC idiots at a funeral and they had to be taken away by police escort while having stones thrown at them.

"we've got a broken window"

...here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGKx2pTBQc

bellends.

Problem is, if you introduce law that stops them protesting at funerals, some time in the future it will be misused for some other purpose.

The police could... say... that it was dangerous for the Westboro Inbred Society* to be near the funeral and move them away everytime.

*almost all their <100 members are blood relatives.

[GSixZero]

The Westboro Baptists are the downside of freedom. Part of freedom is letting people you don't agree with speak, so they let you speak when it's your turn. No one has to listen, but everyone has to be able to talk. What to do about the Westboro Baptists? Don't listen.

If the military is willing to die to protect our right to free speech, wouldn't they also stand up for those trying to protest at military funerals?

One of my favorite Onion headlines: "ACLU defends Nazi's right to burn down ACLU headquarters"

[Y3a]

it true test of being an asshole is BEING REPRESENTED BY THE ACLU in the first place.

[Doofy]

Would the ACLU be bothering to defend Phelps' mob if their target wasn't people involved in the Iraq conflict?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Would the ACLU be bothering to defend Phelps' mob if their target wasn't people involved in the Iraq conflict?

Yup. They have defended the free speech rights of other Christian fundamentalists in other circumstances where people/groups did not like what the fundamentalists were saying.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Yup. They have defended the free speech rights of other Christian fundamentalists in other circumstances where people/groups did not like what the fundamentalists were saying.

Kudos to them then.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Kudos to them then.

Yeah, if I remember correctly there was one instance where they were defending the free-speech rights of a religious anti-abortion group in one state while defending the free-speech rights of a secular pro-abortion group in another state. So, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum they are probably defending the rights of some group you don't like.

And I like that. I like the fact they will defend everyone's rights.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

And I like that. I like the fact they will defend everyone's rights.

Concur.

I was under the impression that they didn't defend everyone's rights (granted, I've not been paying particular attention), but since you say that they do and I've no reason to disbelieve you, kudos to them. This is the way things should be.

[subego]

Originally Posted by greenG4

While a good reason, no. Because they defend things that are inexcusable, and twist the law.

I didn't know there was such a thing as having a legally inexcusable opinion.

Originally Posted by greenG4

A cemetary is not public property. It is normally owned by someone, thus you must pay to ultimately use it. (When you're dead)

Well then we agree. As it is well within the rights of for the owner to eject people off of his private property, the law the ACLU is fighting is not only unconstitutional, but redundant as well.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Concur.

I was under the impression that they didn't defend everyone's rights (granted, I've not been paying particular attention), but since you say that they do and I've no reason to disbelieve you, kudos to them. This is the way things should be.

I think even this case is an example of how the ACLU's only metric for determining whether they defend you is whether the law in question is unconstitutional.

AFAICT, the WBC isn't against the war per se, they're protesting the funerals to inform everyone that this is punishment from god for our tolerance of "fags".

The ACLU loves fags. Trust me on this one. There are a bunch of ACLU lawyers fighting for the WBC through gritted teeth because they know defending them is the right thing to do.

While some people hate the ACLU as an extension of their personal issues with civil rights, oddly, the fact that they defend anyone and everyone who has a legitimate constitutional case is what draws them the most flack.

Every year the Nazi party tries to march in Skokie, a Jewish suburb of Chicago. Every year the Skokie city council tries to refuse them a permit. Every year the ACLU has to come in and defend these Nazi pigs. People really hate the ACLU for doing this.

The irony here is apparently lost on most of the participants.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by subego

I didn't know there was such a thing as having a legally inexcusable opinion.

ie I have the opinion I should be able to "speak out" by burning a building down.

(edit): Note it's not the opinion - it's the way of letting it be known

[itai195]

Originally Posted by greenG4

A cemetary is not public property. It is normally owned by someone, thus you must pay to ultimately use it. (When you're dead)

I think this is the crux of the issue. As I understand it, they aren't actually protesting at the cemeteries, but outside them on the street or sidewalk. Very likely that is public property, so their right to protest is protected. These hate groups tend to know their Constitutional rights pretty well

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by itai195

I think this is the crux of the issue. As I understand it, they aren't actually protesting at the cemeteries, but outside them on the street or sidewalk. Very likely that is public property, so their right to protest is protected. These hate groups tend to know their Constitutional rights pretty well

darn them smart hate groups.

[subego]

Originally Posted by greenG4

ie I have the opinion I should be able to "speak out" by burning a building down.

(edit): Note it's not the opinion - it's the way of letting it be known

As the ACLU has never to my knowledge come to the defense of someone who held this opinion I fail to see the relevance.

Though I guess you get kudos for factually disproving my rhetorical statement.

[Y3a]

I hope to use the cemetary plots of those who have done this horrid display as a urinal for my dogs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I hope to use the cemetary plots of those who have done this horrid display as a urinal for my dogs.

I'm curious as to whether you are more incensed by their message, or the method in which they convey it?

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by smacintush

This is the problem. This is a HUGE problem in many areas of our cry-baby, nursery-esque country. Somebody does something that others don't like and suddenly something must be "done" about it. We could try living in a society where people like this don't get the attention these people have been getting, but that won't happen. Conflict makes good entertainment.

Now, everyone could simply quit their whining and get over it. THAT'S the solution.

So, that's what you'd do if it happened to you? Do nothing while telling everyone else at the funeral to quit whining? I could understand if you said that ignoring them would be the best approach because that makes some sense, but calling it "whining" is a little ignorant in my opinion. People are often an emotion mess at funerals and having someone protesting within hearing distance and saying that God killed your loved one because we tolerate "fags" is certainly something that I can understand "whining" about.

And what do you mean by "something must be 'done'' about it?" People getting the government and media involved? Or just people giving a sh*t that someone is ruining their friend's funeral?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by deej5871

So, that's what you'd do if it happened to you?

No, actually this would never happen to me. Due to my beliefs I don't attend ceremonies where we cart around dead carcasses in boxes.

but calling it "whining" is a little ignorant in my opinion. People are often an emotion mess at funerals and having someone protesting within hearing distance and saying that God killed your loved one because we tolerate "fags" is certainly something that I can understand "whining" about.

Whether it is "understandable" or not, it's still whining.

Now, I wouldn't be saying any of this if people were merely denouncing the WBC. People certainly have the right to dislike these weirdoes and be upset by them. I am, however, very opposed to legislating in order to protect people from being…*gasp*…offended.

And what do you mean by "something must be 'done'' about it?" People getting the government

Yes.

and media involved? Or just people giving a sh*t that someone is ruining their friend's funeral?

No and no.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by subego

I'm curious as to whether you are more incensed by their message, or the method in which they convey it?

The methods.

Why not rent a billboard, sell Tee shirts, etc?

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Good. I hope they win too. I loathe the Westboro Baptists as much as anyone else, but law is not the proper way to deal with them. Their actions are profoundly rude and inconsiderate, to the point where one mighrt almost be able to classify them as true evil, but they are not so dire that it's worth sacrificing freedom of speech just to not have to deal with the real problem.

However there are expressed limits to free speech. You are not allowed to go into a public theatre and yell "fire". There are also public safety concerns here. If these guys are allowed to go to funerals, someone is going to get so mad one day they bring a gun and start shooting these guys. Since these are the funerals of soldiers, maybe the government can arrange some type of service in a private, restricted area.

[Y3a]

If they are on private land, turn the sprinklers on. Soak them and their signs. Why not find a way to disrupt the church the same way they disrupt funerals?

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

However there are expressed limits to free speech. You are not allowed to go into a public theatre and yell "fire". There are also public safety concerns here. If these guys are allowed to go to funerals, someone is going to get so mad one day they bring a gun and start shooting these guys. Since these are the funerals of soldiers, maybe the government can arrange some type of service in a private, restricted area.

WHats that one criminal charge. Trying to incite a riot?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

However there are expressed limits to free speech. You are not allowed to go into a public theatre and yell "fire". There are also public safety concerns here. If these guys are allowed to go to funerals, someone is going to get so mad one day they bring a gun and start shooting these guys.

Hardly comparable. The speech is protected, but consequences of your speech are not. Shouting "fire" in a crowded room is not protected speech for the same reason ordering a hit on someone isn't protected speech — it's not your ability to express yourself that's being limited here. Forbidding someone to express his opinion because somebody else might get mad is a different matter.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

maybe the government can arrange some type of service in a private, restricted area.

Like say... in a cemetery?

As has already been said numerous times, cemeteries are private property to begin with. If the owner doesn't want the protest on his property, the WBC is trespassing.

So far, I haven't heard any argument for why a peaceful protest on public property should be illegal other than "the WBC's tactics frost my ass". People say "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" to demonstrate free speech has a line you cannot cross, but fail to put forth a practical demonstration of where that line is other than "once it starts frosting my ass".

I was always taught the concept behind freedom of speech was specifically to protect speech that pisses you off. That the point of being pissed off is literally the worst place you can try and draw the line of what is acceptable.

This seems blisteringly obvious to me, but there's quite a number (even perhaps a majority) of smart, educated people who apparently don't see it this way. I've set forth in the above paragraph how I feel about the issue, and would be interested someone telling me how they've come to the (apparently) opposite conclusion.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Does anyone think for a minute that the American Dream would suffer if vituperative homophobic terrorist sympathizers were silenced?

Immediately, no. In the long term, yes, very much so, because although the slippery slope argument is technically a logical fallacy, never once in human history has it ever been wrong.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

However there are expressed limits to free speech. You are not allowed to go into a public theatre and yell "fire".

You misunderstand your own example. The crime is inciting a panic without due cause. If this does not occur (if nobody panics, for example, or -more likely- if there really is a fire), then the law cannot touch you.

Free speech is, and should be, absolute and sacrosanct. But that is doesn't mean that one shouldn't bear responsibility for the consequences of said speech.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by smacintush

No, actually this would never happen to me. Due to my beliefs I don't attend ceremonies where we cart around dead carcasses in boxes.

Well that's...interesting.

I am, however, very opposed to legislating in order to protect people from being…*gasp*…offended.

I can agree with that statement, to an extent. I wouldn't exactly call trampling on someone's grave simply being offensive. Why I feel that funerals are special in this way I'm having a hard time putting into words. I think it's because often funerals are a religious ceremony and there are things that go along with that in my mind.

Not that it matters. I agree that legislation is not the answer.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by subego

As the ACLU has never to my knowledge come to the defense of someone who held this opinion I fail to see the relevance.

Though I guess you get kudos for factually disproving my rhetorical statement.

I was not factually disproving. I was showing the breakdown in logic of your arguement. Notice I specifically said there was nothing wrong with having an opinion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by greenG4

I was not factually disproving. I was showing the breakdown in logic of your arguement. Notice I specifically said there was nothing wrong with having an opinion.

My apologies for not addressing the issue directly thereby encouraging this tangent.

In response to the question as to why you disliked the ACLU you responded:

Originally Posted by greenG4

Because they defend things that are inexcusable, and twist the law.

Can you clarify this and provide some examples?

You may consider this incident an example, but there are still parts of your statement that would benefit from some clarification: i.e do you have a problem with the ACLU over this even though the proposed law is unconstitutional, or is the proposed law constitutional in your opinion, and this is an example of the ACLU "twisting the law"?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by deej5871

I can agree with that statement, to an extent. I wouldn't exactly call trampling on someone's grave simply being offensive. Why I feel that funerals are special in this way I'm having a hard time putting into words. I think it's because often funerals are a religious ceremony and there are things that go along with that in my mind.

It's just a rotting sack of meat and bones. If people would realize that then they wouldn't cling to the corpse as if it were actually the living person, and the WBC would have no power at all and we could spend more time discussing how evil George Bush is.

Not that it matters. I agree that legislation is not the answer.

Then I'm sorry if I came across as confrontational.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Millennium

You misunderstand your own example. The crime is inciting a panic without due cause. If this does not occur (if nobody panics, for example, or -more likely- if there really is a fire), then the law cannot touch you.

Free speech is, and should be, absolute and sacrosanct. But that is doesn't mean that one shouldn't bear responsibility for the consequences of said speech.

You make a good point and so do some of the others who responded to my post--however its dangerous to take a purist stance and shut down. Having lost a member of my immediate family myself I also understand how sacrosanct a funeral service is as well. I know its not in the Constitution, but its a basic human right to mourn the loss of your loved ones in peace, outside of the political arena.

Perhaps we can explore this from a different angle then(hope I'm not repeating someone else). If someone blares a radio down my street or yells at 3am, that person can be ticketed for violating a noise ordinance. In a pure sense, isn't that violating free speech? But no one complains when that person gets a ticket(except for the person themselves)

Maybe enforcing a noise ordinance during a funeral service which would limit this group's--and any group's ability to upset family members. They could stand there quietly with their signs, but could not yell.

This is actually a very, very dangerous issue here. Most people are in favor of free speech as am I--even for this group. However, it will always be in the government's interest to limit free speech and every opportunity to take it away is explored by them(even Apple has tried to limit free speech). Here is an issue that can be used to manipulate the public into supporting limitations on free speech that of course can be used outside of this black and white situation.

I think its in the best interests of people who support free speech to find a solution to this problem, rather than be purists and simply say. "Well, its a free country--your dead son/daughter will just have to suffer this indignity and you will just have to buck up during perhaps the most traumatic time of your life"

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It's just a rotting sack of meat and bones. If people would realize that then they wouldn't cling to the corpse as if it were actually the living person, and the WBC would have no power at all and we could spend more time discussing how evil George Bush is.

I guess you've never lost someone that close to you. It's amazing how upset one gets over that rotting sack of meat and bones when the time comes. It's not about "clinging" to them as you assume but trying to accept the loss.