ACLU Sues Over Law Banning Protests At Soldiers' Funerals

You'll be angry?

I'm sorry, I thought this was a serious discussion.

My mistake.

Your previous post and suggestion was serious?

Actually, the AL law is much better defined and has less room for abuse. It's been on the dockets and the ACLU has been involved in it for the better part of a decade.

Lektor's logic mimicks that of a certain President in regards to free speech. That scares me.

Oh please.

Noting your location in your forum icon, I'd like to see what you have say about THIS ONE.

Sometimes the ACLU even pisses me off and I'm a libertarian.

That said, I do think that a better way to handle this asshole (as opposed to passing more complicated laws that no one will enforce) is the way that people have been doing it - and that is with groups like the Patriot Guard. It not only shows solidarity against people like Phelps, but it shows respect for the solider who has died. I went to one and I sort of felt like I became part of the funeral procession, it's hard to explain, but I felt like I needed to be there and I would not have been there if it had not been for that asshole.

If any of you all read LEONARD PITTS JR (a Columinst in the Miami Herald) he has a pretty interesting theory on Mr. Phelps.

The story starts:



Interesting read...

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/13970655.htm

Heh. That is certainly a plausible theory. Either that or Phelps was sexually abused by his father and has spent the rest of his life trying to get over that.

Either way, he's a few bushels of potatoes short of a Happy Meal's worth of fries.

P2

I saw it when it was fired off in October.

And it's already been amended. To encompass the property of the funeral home and connecting roads.

Our counties pass stupid shit that is amended a month to 3 years later on a regular basis. It's the nature of TN. That an A.P. reporter actually noted it shows that the A.P. was bored.

We had a ban on a charitable rubber duck race in Knox County for several years. Literally thousands of rubber duckies were implanted with a tracking device and dropped into the Tennessee River, with people paying to put their name on a duck ID badge, and whoever's ducks crossed the finish line first, won prizes, and proceeds went to charity. Since the tracking devices were in the ducks, all were retrieved, so no environmental hazard. 3 years after this started, the county put a ban on it because it violated a "gambling" law. 2.5 years after that, gambling was legalized.


I'm in a state that bans rubber ducks for charity, then brings in the Powerball. Dont' take any law we pass seriously.

Nice one...


The measure requires demonstrators to obtain a permit from the county mayor and require the protest to be held in an approved area — in this case, the county sanitation department on the edge of town, The Tennessean reported.

Much nicer location than I'd pick out.....just sayin'

Whereas I see the conflict of interests here and the questionable taste of where the protesters are choosing to protest, I can also see a practical point by putting myself in the shoes of a parent who could conceivably loose a child to war (in some number of years).

We're familiar with the "I support the troops but not the war" sentiment. In fact, I hold that belief personally. Lets say that I did lose a child to the war and wanted to protest as loudly as I could to prevent others from losing their children also. Where could I do so? Outside the White House? That would be a good place to be ignored. Outside the Congress - the same. On the frontline? A mite hazardous and not many cameras around. Unfortunately, the most effective place to make my point would be at the about the only domestic public presence of the effects of the war. Indeed, I would suspect that the families of those burying soldiers aren't too keen on the war either. And it is getting attention.

Is this "nice"? Not particularly. Can I think of a more effective venue for making the protest? I cannot. Is it less scummy than local news crews shoving cameras in the faces of any grieving people? Probably. Is it better than shooting people whose viewpoints you disagree with? Yep. Would I do this? No. Can I understand why some people might? Sure, this war - like Vietnam and unlike say the supression of the third reich - is of questionable merit and even though it may have spread the germ of democracy in Iraq, we've paid pretty heavily for it in dead soldiers.

I support the troops but not the war.

I support the troops by NOT supporting the war.

I dont' see how people can honestly say they're supporting the troops by supporting them being shot at for a cause that doesn't exist.

I'm severely disappointed in you my friend. Also, thanks for hijacking and derailing my thread.

Freedom of speech is just that, including protecting speech you don't like, however monstrous. I find the protests loathesome, but there are other avenues to pursue to deal with them (such has harassment charges) than restricting the ability for people to say what they want, a right that those very soldiers died protecting. Juro's argument is not ridiculous, I agree with him. The law might pass but it would never survive a constitutional challenge - efforts are better spent finding ways to toughen harassment laws.

PS - I know this is a sensitive issue, and I mean you no disrespect, Lecktor. Personally I hope they find a way to put the monsters in prison for the rest of their lives for the pain they have inflicted on these families - they have been doing it for years with AIDS patients as well. I just don't think saying "you can't say these things" is the right approach.

This thread isn't about supporting the war.

Read it again. They aren't restricted in WHAT they can say.

*edit- I retract that Juro's argument is ridiculous for the sake of my sanity.

Corvus, you know, unless you've actually lived it, you may not understand what supporting the troops really is....and it's not easily explainable. War ruins more lives than just those of the dead servicepeople and their families.


*sorry for adding to the derailment, I just had to say that*

What most CHURCHES should be doing is preaching their own BS to their people and anyone else that agrees with them.

Now, if they are into public demonstrations about the war, why not go to some public office and protest there? Why do they have to go and profanate a burial? No one at that site is responsible for what's going on... not even the dead person being buried.

All this free speech BS is nonsense. Just because you have free speech doesn't give you the right to harrass civilians at such a delicate moment of their lives.

Remember, one person's rights end where the next person's rights begin.

Well said Marker. Thank you and good to see you posting.

I was addressing a branch of where the conversation had tracked. Don't try to discredit me by accusing me of punditry in such a subtle manner, I'll just make you look really silly.

Sally is right. War destroys lives that aren't in active duty, because when someone you love goes to war, you are also at war. It rends you apart, especially if it's a war with such transparent reasoning and that is as absolute a failure as this one. That's just if the person you love comes home, or if you are the person coming home. If you come home in a box, the anger, hatred, and misery become overwhelming for those who survive you. Some aim it at the war, others the government, but in the end, there is no good that comes from unabashed and greedy violence.

Now that the branch is addressed, back to the topic. Wait...the topic has been addressed, and we can look for such things to be amended as we go.

My apologies as I was trying to make a point regarding where one could protest and had not read (and haven't yet - but will right now) how obnoxious these protesters are. My opinion may change upon becomming informed.

Added: oops! these protesters are scum. sorry for the accidental hijack borne of my ignorance. I'll let the post stand as a testament to my ignorance. Please accept my apologies for talking out of my ass.

And why would you think I am so passionate about it ? Why do you think Sally is passionate about it? I wasn't trying to discredit you, however, I guarantee you will find it extremely difficult to make me look silly when it comes to this issue.

In concept, this law is no different then the ones on abortion clinic protests...I havne't heard of any of them being knocked down.

I support ACLU Challenging this law. I also think it's going to end up validified by the courts.

Yes, but you're making the same mistake that the local government made, and executing the very reason that people are so easily manipulated by the government in the first place.

You have a personal stake in this, so it's an emotional issue.

A: "Well, we have this bill that limits protestors from showing up at military funerals to claim people dying in the war do so because of gay people".

B:"Shit! SIGN THE BILL!"

It's not that simple. This is a case of from-the-hip legislation. Noone disagrees that a private funeral should be kept, indeed, private. The law is just very badly written, has too much room for abuse, and would be better fit to harassment or privacy law instead of peacekeeping law. Noone's disputing the reasoning behind the law, just the manner in which that spirit is implemented in the law itself. It needs amending, or to be scrapped and replaced with one from an appropriate legal venue.

The very point is that you are a bit too close to this issue to see it objectively anyway. People are going to see it differently, and you just seem to be getting pissed off at anyone who disagrees that this law is the best way to handle it. The ACLU is doing their part in the system, you may not like that they are standing up for freedom of speech here, but you would appreciate their efforts in another situation if it were something you believed in. The bad guys here are the damn Phelps family, not your friends, Lecktor, and not the ACLU. As written, the law is too broad to even be effective.