The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[Nathan Poe]

My spouse used to go to clinic protests.

My spouse saw "pro-life" people run up to women going into a clinic and push them over, hard, onto the sidewalk.

Given that some of these women were there for the free prenatal care, not for abortions, that's pretty nasty.

You can say "most protestors don't", and I can agree. Most don't.

But if some do, that's reason enough to establish a physical safety margin against violence.

Indeed. Say what you will about Phelps, but at least he never assaulted anyone.

He's a nuisance, not a threat.

 

[notto]

The ACLU, and many on the left, support Phelps' right to protest uninhibited, but deny that same right to abortion protesters

Another misrepresentation of the ACLU. The ACLU has defended abortion protesters numerous time. Why do you feel the need to use false information to try to make your point? You should at least familiarize yourself with the ACLU before you attempt to demonize them and accuse them of things they do not do. Why don't you read up on the ACLU's actual position on the phelps case and abortions protesters case. You will find that the exact same position that you are condeming as they support Phelps is what they use to defend abortion rights protesters.

You don't even realize it but basically you are arguing that protesters don't have a right to protest on public sidewalks outside of abortion clinics. That is the difference between your viewpoint and the ACLU. The ACLU will defend both the protesters rights while you would choose to deny one group of citizens rights but would be all over the government if they denied the other group the same right.

Yet you accuse the ACLU of exactly what you are doing when the actual behavior of the ACLU shows that they don't do what you claim. There's a word for that you know.

 

[k]

What criteria is being used to call the ACLU the "Left?" In another thread it was proven why Walmart was part of the Right so I'm just wondering what standards are being used?

At this point, it appears any group that does not pom-pom the Right is automatically the Left.

 

[notto]

What criteria is being used to call the ACLU the "Left?"

Only the "left" would defend the rights of Christian abortion protesters to protest outside of clinics and the right of a homophobic protester that says that God hates homosexuals.

(hey, wait a minute, that sounds more like the "right", doesn't it?)

 

[Norseman]

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



I suppose this is an example of how much most of the Left dislikes George Bush and the war. So much so that they support Fred Phelps

Yes. We approve of what Phelps is saying, but we will not defend to the death his right to say it. The ACLU is of course, only doing this because they agree with him.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

I'm sorry I just don't think telling an abortion protester to stay across the street or Phelp's gang you have to move 10 feet is restricting speech. I don't think either should be told they can't say it but once they are inflicting themselves on others being told to move doesn't keep them from saying it. I'm done now.

 

[blueapplepaste]

Youshould go back and read what I said

I did:

I find it ironic that those on the left can support abortion based on a perceived right to privacy, thus allowing a woman to kill her unborn child. Yet, they cannot seem to perceive that same right to privacy for a woman to bury her dead son who sacrificed his life for his country.

So how does a woman's right to privacy have anything to do with abortion protests? You don't even mention protests in your post but then start talking about them out of the blue. You're being very confusing here (regarding this post and subsequent posts regarding it).

Got my morning coffee; back to 100%!

Protesting abortions and protesting funerals are both protests. The ACLU, and many on the left, support Phelps' right to protest uninhibited, but deny that same right to abortion protesters

The point is that abortion protesters are restricted from certain public areas. Why does the ACLU not take up that fight for freedom of speech

Abortion protesters often turn to drastic tactics. They will physically block the doors or harass and heckle doctors and patients. I think there is a reasonable expectation to not be harassed when going to a doctors office. I have no problem if they want to protest or try to offer counseling and other alternatives to a woman; but it needs to be through a reasonable manner that doesn't directly interfere with a woman's right to do as she pleases. To physically block the door or to harass them is crossing the line and the courts have decided it's been crossed one too may times; therefore there are restrictions.

Now if Phelps and his gang tried to block people from going to the funeral or were harassing the people at the funeral then that would be one thing. But to my knowledge they have not.

 

[MachZer0]

Because they already have.

http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/22399lgl19991112.html

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11484prs20040716.html

We argued that the injunction was necessary to ensure safe and unimpeded access to reproductive health services in the face of extensive evidence that the protesters had repeatedly obstructed, harassed, crowded, intimidated, and grabbed clinic patients and staff. The Supreme Court upheld the order creating protest-free zones.

On the other hand, not even the First Amendment is absolute.

Exactly my point, and with the ACLU, it tends to be arbitrary

 

[notto]

Exactly my point, and with the ACLU, it tends to be arbitrary

The rational provided is anything but arbitrary and is exactly the same position they take with Phelps. If Phelps starts physically blocking access to funerals, the ACLU would not support that behavior.

There is no evidence at this point that Phelps is impeding anyone from attending a funeral so there is no justification at this point to limit access or create free speech zones. He is being targeting for his speech and not due to any actions outside of that speech.

The same cannot be said about why there are zones around abortion clinics. Those only came about when abortion protesters started to restrict and impede access to clinics, which is not a protected right.

 

[MachZer0]

The rational provided is anything but arbitrary and is exactly the same position they take with Phelps. If Phelps starts physically blocking access to funerals, the ACLU would not support that behavior.

There is no evidence at this point that Phelps is impeding anyone from attending a funeral so there is no justification at this point to limit access or create free speech zones. He is being targeting for his speech and not due to any actions outside of that speech.

The same cannot be said about why there are zones around abortion clinics. Those only came about when abortion protesters started to restrict and impede access to clinics, which is not a protected right.

The ACLU supported the buffer zones around the clinics, according to its own brief, as linked. they did not support what was called a floating buffer zone

 

[MachZer0]

What exactly is the problem with requiring protests at funerals to be held at least 300 ft away? Many on the left like to use the example that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. While the Supreme Court has found an "understood" right to privacy in the Constitution for some, why does that right not extend to grieving family and friends burying their dead? Why does that right to privacy not extend to all Americans?

 

[notto]

The ACLU supported the buffer zones around the clinics, according to its own brief, as linked. they did not support what was called a floating buffer zone

And they supported those buffer zones for safety reasons. A completely non-arbitrary reason.

 

[ElvisFan42]

What exactly is the problem with requiring protests at funerals to be held at least 300 ft away? Many on the left like to use the example that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. While the Supreme Court has found an "understood" right to privacy in the Constitution for some, why does that right not extend to grieving family and friends burying their dead? Why does that right to privacy not extend to all Americans?

Personally, I would like to see zero protests at funerals and the privacy issue is a great one. You had a persons entire life to protest them, their final day above ground should be void of that. I think 300 feet is a great comprimise.

 

[notto]

Why does that right to privacy not extend to all Americans?

It does. The question that is being challenged is what constitutes 'privacy' without limiting the rights of others.

Where does the fist end and the nose start?

Is there any valid reason for safety or privacy to limit access on public sidewalks outside of a cemetary and can those limits only apply to a particular type of unfavorable speech. The court was presented with valid reasons for buffers around clinic doors because what was being done there went beyond the fist and hit the nose. Citizens were being prevented from entering a public facility.

That is not what is happening and funeral protests. If it was, you might have a valid argument, but as it stands, your argument trying to create an analogy between the protests doesn't seem very persuasive.

 

[MachZer0]

And they supported those buffer zones for safety reasons. A completely non-arbitrary reason.

Phelps protests are very threatening in the manner in which they are held, specifically, expressing gratitude for the deaths of the soldiers. The grieiving family should be allowed the privacy to bury their dead, safe and secure from any threats. Phelps is not being restricted in what he says but rather where he says it. Such restrictions are not uncommon

 

[Nathan Poe]

Phelps protests are very threatening in the manner in which they are held, specifically, expressing gratitude for the deaths of the soldiers.

The simple fact remains that the Phelps Clan has never physically assaulted anyone at these protests. Anti-abortion protesters, OTOH, have a long history of doing so to clinic staff and patients.

The grieiving family should be allowed the privacy to bury their dead, safe and secure from any threats. Phelps is not being restricted in what he says but rather where he says it. Such restrictions are not uncommon

Not uncommon in the case involving potential violence. Again, unlike pro-lifers, Phelps has never actually threatened anyone -- big difference.

 

[notto]

Phelps protests are very threatening in the manner in which they are held, specifically, expressing gratitude for the deaths of the soldiers. The grieiving family should be allowed the privacy to bury their dead, safe and secure from any threats. Phelps is not being restricted in what he says but rather where he says it. Such restrictions are not uncommon

Unfavorable speech does not equate to a threat or a breech of security. Physically blocking access to a location does. You are trying to equate the two in a desperate attempt to validate your point. Again, you should carefully read the court cases involved and the position of the ACLU and these differences are spelled out in clear and plain legal language that both the courts and law enforcement agree with.

Remember, you don't have the right to not be offended.

(if you think you do, you must might be a liberal)

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

It's a real shame people can't debate without name calling and bs comments made to make others look stupid. You would think there is some muturity but guess not.

 

[AirPo]

Is there any valid reason for safety or privacy to limit access on public sidewalks outside of a cemetary

I think yes, but with respect to emotional, not phyisical safty. I'm not sure how that holds up the legal scrutiny though. But I do think it's reasonable.

and can those limits only apply to a particular type of unfavorable speech.

No. I can think of various scenarios where the presenece of one person outside the furneral of another would cause sufficient duress to the family and friens of the deceased that limiting access is protecting the rights of those attending the furneral.

 

[notto]

I think yes, but with respect to emotional, not phyisical safty. I'm not sure how that holds up the legal scrutiny though. But I do think it's reasonable.

If you can legally describe this 'emotional safety' outside of I'm offended' then you might have somewhere to go with the argument. As it stands, that doesn't pass legal or constitutional scrutiny.

No. I can think of various scenarios where the presenece of one person outside the furneral of another would cause sufficient duress to the family and friens of the deceased that limiting access is protecting the rights of those attending the furneral.

Perhaps a restraining order against the person (instead of limiting free speech) would be the best legal approach. If the durress can be shown to be a physical threat or a concern for safety, then that would take care of it.