The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

The First Amendment doesn't address graduation speeches.

So, depending on the venue, Voltaire was being unreasonble? By the way, venue is what the Missouri law restricting picketing at funerals is all about. The law doesn't prevent Phelps and his followers from saying what they want, only that they can't say it at the funerals.

 

[nvxplorer]

Who has the right to attach strings at a graduation cemamony

Those who provide the venue. In this case, the school.

Any group or individual that invites someone to speak has every right to determine the topic of discussion. If I invite you into my home to speak to my children on the dangers of alcohol, I have every right to stop you if you promote alcohol use.

why and what kind of strings.

In the school's case, because a sermon is not appropriate for graduation ceremonies.

In other cases, for whatever reason the inviting group or individual sees fit.

 

[UberLutheran]

Let's see: I'm a part of the left (far enough so that the Democratic Party was no longer working for me, so I became a Libertarian).

I have absolutely NO use for George Bush. The one thing that gives me any happiness about his Presidency is that he will likely go down as the worst American President of all time, and there's nothing the Bush family can do to change that fact other than declaring martial law and taking over the country in a dictatorship. Now, that might or might not happen, but it still won't change Bush's ultimate standing in history: America actually had a President between 2000 and 2008 who was worse than James Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Warren Harding, or Calvin Coolidge.

(Notice that I did not include Herbert Hoover, who was handed the conditions which caused the Great Depression by Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge and I doubt if it was in the power of any one President to fix a catastrophe like the October meltdown of 1929 or the collapse of the Bank of Austria. Nor did I include Richard Nixon because while he was paranoid and a scoundrel with regard to dealing with perceived political enemies, some of Nixon's social policies were good.)

At the same time, I have NO use for Fred Phelps. I think the look in his face pretty much shows where he's coming from -- and it sure isn't God!

So, I'm a member of the left, and I have no use for George Bush; but I also have no use for Fred Phelps. In a mathematical proof, it takes only one instance of a proof being false for the entire statement to become false -- so I think I may have just ruined your thesis statement!

 

[MachZer0]

The First Amendment doesn't address graduation speeches.

I forgot. The First Amendment is about funding.

 

[MachZer0]

Let's see: I'm a part of the left (far enough so that the Democratic Party was no longer working for me, so I became a Libertarian).

I have absolutely NO use for George Bush. The one thing that gives me any happiness about his Presidency is that he will likely go down as the worst American President of all time, and there's nothing the Bush family can do to change that fact other than declaring martial law and taking over the country in a dictatorship. Now, that might or might not happen, but it still won't change Bush's ultimate standing in history: America actually had a President between 2000 and 2008 who was worse than James Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Warren Harding, or Calvin Coolidge.

(Notice that I did not include Herbert Hoover, who was handed the conditions which caused the Great Depression by Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge and I doubt if it was in the power of any one President to fix a catastrophe like the October meltdown of 1929 or the collapse of the Bank of Austria. Nor did I include Richard Nixon because while he was paranoid and a scoundrel with regard to dealing with perceived political enemies, some of Nixon's social policies were good.)

At the same time, I have NO use for Fred Phelps. I think the look in his face pretty much shows where he's coming from -- and it sure isn't God!

So, I'm a member of the left, and I have no use for George Bush; but I also have no use for Fred Phelps. In a mathematical proof, it takes only one instance of a proof being false for the entire statement to become false -- so I think I may have just ruined your thesis statement!

Maybe you should reread the statement

 

[notto]

So, depending on the venue, Voltaire was being unreasonble? By the way, venue is what the Missouri law restricting picketing at funerals is all about. The law doesn't prevent Phelps and his followers from saying what they want, only that they can't say it at the funerals.

Or near the funerals, which is the problem the ACLU is addressing. The new laws take existing venues of free speech and puts limits on the based on the content of the speech and their proximity to other events.

The other thing that you seem to be missing in this dead horse analogy of yours is that the government is not providing the venue for Phelps, which is the case with school sponsored speeches.

 

[MachZer0]

Or near the funerals, which is the problem the ACLU is addressing. The new laws take existing venues of free speech and puts limits on the based on the content of the speech and their proximity to other events.

It should be noted that graduation ceremonies used to be venues of free speech as well.

The other thing that you seem to be missing in this dead horse analogy of yours is that the government is not providing the venue for Phelps, which is the case with school sponsored speeches.

As I recall, the cemeteries in question are public cemeteries. That means that they are indeed provided by the government. No law is required for funerals at private cemeteries because being private, Phelps can be refused access.

 

[livingword26]

Those who provide the venue. In this case, the school.

Any group or individual that invites someone to speak has every right to determine the topic of discussion. If I invite you into my home to speak to my children on the dangers of alcohol, I have every right to stop you if you promote alcohol use.

The difference here being that your home is your personal property. The public school is not. It is public property and very much subject to the freedom of speach.

In the school's case, because a sermon is not appropriate for graduation ceremonies.

There is a difference between speaking of Gods influence in the persons life given the speach, and a sermon. In any case, a public official denying a person to speak of God is an infringment of their religious rights as well as their rights to free speech.

 

[Rae]

The impression I'm getting from this thread is that Christians don't want to post the Ten Commandments in their churches, where they belong, but on government buildings, where they don't. Am I wrong or am I right?

 

[nvxplorer]

The difference here being that your home is your personal property. The public school is not. It is public property and very much subject to the freedom of speach.

People are not free to speak whatever they want, anytime they want, simply because they are on public property. Every public institution has rules - from courtrooms, to the Senate, to local meetings, to school functions.

There is a difference between speaking of Gods influence in the persons life given the speach, and a sermon. In any case, a public official denying a person to speak of God is an infringment of their religious rights as well as their rights to free speech.

This is not an accurate description of the event. The girl agreed to the terms, and she broke the agreement. The subject matter is irrelevant. The point is that she did not follow through with her promise.

A school has every right to set standards for speeches given by students.

 

[MachZer0]

People are not free to speak whatever they want, anytime they want, simply because they are on public property. Every public institution has rules - from courtrooms, to the Senate, to local meetings, to school functions.




This is not an accurate description of the event. The girl agreed to the terms, and she broke the agreement. The subject matter is irrelevant. The point is that she did not follow through with her promise.

A school has every right to set standards for speeches given by students.

I guess that settles the "Voltaire" approach to the subject

 

[livingword26]

The impression I'm getting from this thread is that Christians don't want to post the Ten Commandments in their churches, where they belong, but on government buildings, where they don't. Am I wrong or am I right?

They are already in our government buildings, in our court rooms and legislatures. Many of them have been there since they were built. They are the cornerstone of our modern law which is a reflection of Gods laws. We just want to keep them from being taken down.

 

[Rae]

They are already in our government buildings, in our court rooms and legislatures.

Ah. Then they need to be taken down, as they're evidence of our government's improper favoring of your religion. Great. No problem.

 

[nvxplorer]

I guess that settles the "Voltaire" approach to the subject

I never mentioned Voltaire.

 

[nvxplorer]

They are the cornerstone of our modern law which is a reflection of Gods laws.

Two out of ten is hardly a cornerstone.

 

[livingword26]

Ah. Then they need to be taken down, as they're evidence of our government's improper favoring of your religion. Great. No problem.

Just as a curiosity, I would be inerested to see if you can back up this statement with the 1st amendment.

 

[Rae]

I would be inerested to see if you can back up this statement with the 1st amendment.

The Supreme Court thinks I can. But I know they're often ignored, and already have been in this thread.

 

[livingword26]

The Supreme Court thinks I can. But I know they're often ignored, and already have been in this thread.

Very convincing

 

[george78]

Funny.

First off, the title of the article is "ACLU Backs Free Speech for All - Except Pro-lifers." (It helps to read the articles. Following the posts that you choose to defend would be wise as well.)

Let's find out what is and isn't relevant.

Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants' First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief...

The above is the neutral brief in question.

In post #93, george uses the following excerpt to claim, "That's not a 'neutral brief'."

Then, in 1995, the national ACLU joined its New York affiliate in defending an injunction against anti-abortion protesters, arguing that the imposition of a moving buffer zone that kept protesters 15 feet away from people entering and leaving abortion clinics did not violate the First Amendment.

The 1995 New York case is irrelevant to the Oregon case. While george is correct in his claim, "That's not a neutral brief," it is irrelevant to that which he is arguing against. I may as well post a link to NASA, point to a photo of the Space Shuttle, and claim, "That's not an anti-abortion protest!"

Sorry. Your incorrect here.

My point was that the ACLU does not support the rights of pro-lifers to protest. PERIOD.

I then linked an article.

You came in with something about a "neutral brief". In other words, you picked out one portion of the article.

I posted an instance where the ACLU CLEARLY was not neutral and actively opposed pro-lifers. The misdirect is you focused on Oregon in the First place, where I was focusing on New York.

Your "neutral brief" instance is therfore irrelevant. Since the ACLU clearly DID oppose the rights of pro-lifers to protest in the New York Case.

They are demonstrating hypocrisy, which is precisely my point.




Focus soley on New York.

The ACLU actively fought against the Pro-Lifers in the NY case, yet they are supporting Phelps here.

 

[notto]

It should be noted that graduation ceremonies used to be venues of free speech as well.

When and where? Students could say whatever they wanted? Profanity, sexual inuendo, kill the teachers? Your statement is not supported by history or evidence. What you are claiming is 'free speech' is governmetn allowed speech plain and simple. Schools have always had the privilage of censoring the speech of students at their graduation ceremonies, just like the enforcement of dress codes to attend.

As I recall, the cemeteries in question are public cemeteries. That means that they are indeed provided by the government. No law is required for funerals at private cemeteries because being private, Phelps can be refused access.

You seem to be confusing governement providing a privilage of speech that they sponsor (graduation events) and condone and them taking away the right of free speech that they don't agree with from citizens.

A student speech at a school sponsored graduation is government speech no matter who is doing the speaking. It never was a venue of free speech and there are rules that speakers adhere to when they agree and they are selected and condoned by the government actors.

Phelps is not. You are comparing apples and oranges.

You seem to be consistently confusing privilage with rights. A right is something that can be exercized by ANY citizen. Any citizen does not have the right to a captive audience of a graduation ceremony to give a speech. It is a privilage of the selection. Any citizen does not have the right to remodel a public courthouse to their religious whims. It is a privilage of the position.

Every citizen has the right to protest or loiter on public spaces around cemetaries. It is a right enjoyed by all and the issue at hand now is that a particular group who is using unpopular speech is being limited from sharing that venue with everybody else.

If you can't see the difference, then you just are not trying and seem to purposely trying to confuse the issue.

Read a few of the court cases. Typically these differences are explained in excruciating detail. You seem unfamiliar with the true nature of rights, privilage, and government sponsored speech and privilage.