ACLU Sues Over Law Banning Protests At Soldiers' Funerals

The ACLU is a solution waiting for a problem. They take reasonable laws and come up with ridiculously extreme examples of what *could* happen and then blackmail local/state/federal Government into killing a law because they have far more money to dedicate to a legal battle than most of their vicitms do.

-Kiamat Dusk

He does a great job doing that himself

That's the best you can do?

So, it's OK to protest at someone's funeral if they're atheist, then? Isn't that discrimination?


Free speech is pretty much free speech. Whether you agree with it or like it doesn't really limit it. Unless the "speech" involves doing something illegal, one shouldn't (and probably legally can't) ban it merely because it's offensive.

It's religious harassment on the part of the protestors, actually, not the funeral participants. No, it's not OK to protest at a persons funeral just because the person is athiest.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
The original point was that it wasn't OK to protest at funerals because they were religious events; by that logic, it would be OK to protest at the funeral of an atheist. I was denouncing that original point by making this new one of the inherent discrimination of that policy.

While I would probably commit lasting violence against anyone picketing a funeral I was at... I begrudingly would not want to ban or limit their protests on public property because then nothing stands between limiting their speech and mine. Most westerners defended the Muhammed comics, even though they were offensive to people too.

The ACLU does pretty much have an obligation to at least challenge this law legally, to do otherwise is to pick sides and that's not the point of the organization.

If they didn't challenge it in court, someone else would.

I think you misunderstood the original point, actually "Religious Harassment" doesn't have to be harassing someone because of the harasees religion. It can easily come from a religious person harassing an athiest.

I used to work at a place where his kids walked in off the street soliciting candy and told us if they didn't sell their quota their Daddy would beat them. We finally got a restraining order to keep them out, but that was the first I'd heard of this jerkoff.

To answer another question, most of the legal punch of WBC comes from three of his eldest -- Jonathan, Marge and Shirley. Marge is actually a public employee in her county, giving her father easy access to records and officials.

Any -- I repeat ANY -- attempts by local officials to limit Phelps' activities were met by such a barrage of legal stonewalling and countersuits that it became a losing exercise in futility. A Concerned Citizens Council finally formed, featuring some town councilmen and local clergy, which had more success by staging peaceful counterprotests. And it didn't hurt a thing that the local newspaper finally stopped covering his shennanigans just to pull the plug on the stage lights he craves so much.

Dr. Joyce Brothers toured through the area a few years ago and was the first prominent personality I remember suggesting that perhaps Phelps was so venomous because he feared that very thing within himself.

Perhaps Phelps' biggest mistake has been thinking that he could go national and gain more traction. Not only has he been met with a wellspring of scorn (I loved the 20/20 segment that showed his mob picketing a Gay Pride parade in San Francisco - it may have been his first encounter with militant gays, one of whom emptied an entire can of mace directly into his face before the police could pull him off), but it's motivated counter-groups. The Patriot Guard is a good example of this, and I heartily applaud their efforts. They make me proud.

Why don't we just edit the 1st Amendment to say this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, except for Fred Phelps and his ilk, he has to shut the fuck up!

Works for me.

Joking aside, there does have to be a point where the law steps in to curb destructive elements of society. It's why slander is illegal, for example.

To me he looks like the guy from the Phantasm series of movies.

As the odds are there are only family and friends at the funeral, I cannot see how protesting there will do your cause any good. While I believe in right to protest, I do not believe that is used very wisely.

I dunno, I think my suggestion was pretty dead on (hooray for Google image search), though actually Fred is scarier looking because he is really evil, not just a character in a movie:

Fred Phelps


Julian Beck, Poltergeist II

It's a bit silly to make a special thing in the law to stop one person from behaving this way. The ability of one awful person to have a negative influence is far beyond what it should be. My first thought was, "leave the law as-is but cut his brake lines," but that isn't right either. This must be terribly hard on the families. It seems as though "behaving in a swinish manner near a funeral" does not need to be dictated by law except for this madman. It's certainly a horrible situation.

Do you think that when the madman dies his family will continue doing these things? That's a nasty thought.

show up at a military funeral.

protest.

have fun learning what soldiers consider free speach.

communist.

Some people never put themselves in another's shoes then have the gall to pontificate. It's so easy for them to speak righteously because it's not their funeral, not their loss.

It's FUNERAL, soldier or not, it's a very personal thing for the family. If it were your funeral or a very loved one's funeral would you like it disrupted by protests?

The guy died already, and for whatever reason the death occurred, let the FAMILY have peace.

Even if the funeral was for the hardest of criminals of the most heinous of crimes ... I'd leave the family be and pay their last respects.

I think the war on Iraq was not a well thought-out thing but STILL leave the family of the soldier their privacy and peace.

Sally,

When laws like this are passed, there's no real limitation of their scope, and because of their typically vague wording, they can be used to restrict speech and gatherings that any given official doesn't like. Alas, you cannot write a law targetting a specific group, like the Westboro "church". It leaves you open to multiple lawsuits as well as a First Amendment violation (restriction of speech, restriction of religion - because these bastards view it as their religious duty to be as poisonous as possible).

I find the Phelps brood noxious and as close to evil as human beings can get; unfortunately, I also find the potential for restrictions on free speech brought by this sort of law fairly noxious as well.

I don't always agree with the people behind an ACLU suit, but I find that, more often than not, the ACLU's reasoning is sound - and as a proponent of unpopular political speech myself, though considerably less toxic and hate-filled than Phelps - I appreciate the fact that they are trying to maintain the right to be unpopular.

(I just hope there're some broken necks and blind policement at the next funeral protest the Phelps clan attends, s'all.)

To all those trying to say that free speech should have no limits: I assume you would be fine with me breaking into your home and shouting things into your ear at 3am?

Everyone has freedom to speak their mind, but everyone also has the freedom NOT TO BE FORCED TO LISTEN.

When the right to free speech impinges on the right for others to get on with their lives, it stops becoming a right and starts becoming an assault on rights.

"What freedom means is being allowed to sing in my bath as loudly as will not interfere with my neighbour's freedom to sing a different tune in his."

Nobody is saying you can't say what you like. They are just telling you where not to say certain things, in order to preserve overall freedom. Think; how much freedom of speech will you have if someone else is free to stand next to you at all times and scream obscenities to drown you out?

This isn't about "silencing" people. This is just about limiting protesting from when and where it is not appropriate.

Musuko.

Musuko,

Actually, since breaking and entering is a crime, and accosting someone and shouting into their ear could also be considered a crime depending on your methodry, your comparison is poor at best. Neither of those two acts are protected speech.

There are laws to address /all of your/ examples on the books in almost every municipality I can think of, without actually infringing on the First Amendment rights of citizens.

The ACLU is fighting these laws based on their vagueness and potential for abuse in cases other than the Phelps case.

(Of course, I find this all especially bitter, considering none of these towns gave a flying f*ck when Phelps and his little den of vipers were spewing their poison at the funerals of gays and lesbians.)

Phee.

"The ACLU is fighting these laws based on their vagueness and potential for abuse in cases other than the Phelps case."

I understand that, and can see how that can be an issue. However, do the existing laws cover this particular situation? Is there a "disturbing the peace" law that would cover it?

Musuko.

Good question. I have to wonder why they wouldn't use that sort of law, or if this was more an ill-thought-out statement on the part of the municipalities involved to Phelps:

"We're not going to tolerate you."

Frankly? I like the solution one gay cafe exercised the best in regards to Phelps - they set up a collection, like those used for marathon runners, wherein the longer Phelps and his little nest of vipers preached - the more money the cafe collected.

The money they collected went to a gay charity.

I think it's the best solution to his toxic language - if you hear Phelps is coming to town, collect money from it for the family or families involved.

It'll piss him off even more.

Phee

I am very sorry folks but free speech means exactly that. Why on earth anyone would attack the ACLU for defending the Constitution is beyond me. I am serious. If you can't tolerate people disagreeing with you I sugest you move to Afganistan or somewhere where they kill people who disagree. Maybe you would feel better if you were dead.