The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[Nathan Poe]

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.

But not legal. Politically Correct nonsense aside (some of which is far too liberal even for me), you really don't have any legal right not to be offended by someone.

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.

If the issue is emotional duress, there's already a remedy -- Sue the bum!

 

[AirPo]

But not legal. Politically Correct nonsense aside (some of which is far too liberal even for me), you really don't have any legal right not to be offended by someone.

Agreed. However, in certain cases I think it can go beyond offense to the point of real pain.

If the issue is emotional duress, there's already a remedy -- Sue the bum!

Sure, but does someone really have the right to intentionally cause another severe emotional pain?

 

[AirPo]

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.


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.

But it seems to me that in the case of a funeral, the duress and harm caused is so obvious that the individual attention of getting a restraining order should not be neceassary.

 

[notto]

But it seems to me that in the case of a funeral, the duress and harm caused is so obvious that the individual attention of getting a restraining order should not be neceassary.

And some would say that the duress and harm caused by Phelps's message to anyone who is homosexual or has AIDS is so obvious that the individual attention of a restraining order should not be necessary.

By your reasoning, Phelps should be removed completely from the streets.

Imagine the outrage if that were the case. That is what I find so strange about the calls to have Phelps not be able to publically protest during a funeral. Where were the calls for this when he pickets parades and events with his same hateful and destructive message? Strangely, they weren't coming from the same source of outrage we see now.

If Phelp's message isn't appropiate for outside a cemetary based on its content, then it is not appropriate anywhere where the victims of his message can hear it. Do we ban it from the streets altogether? From TV and the media? Legally, that is a scary and slippery slope. Why just funerals? He has been causing emotional damage for years in other venues. Do we silence all those with a message similar to Phelps in other venues as well?

I would certainly like to see Phelps and his message go away but I'm not willing to approve of sliding down that slope and I'm surprised that social conservatives seem to be.

 

[MachZer0]

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)

I reposted a significant quote from the case. It shows a clear double standard, when compared with the Phelps case, on the part of the ACLU

 

[notto]

I reposted a significant quote from the case. It shows a clear double standard, when compared with the Phelps case, on the part of the ACLU

It shows nothing of the sort. Phelps isn't blocking anyone from attending anything, unlike the abortion protestors the case was against. I must have missed the ouble standard, perhaps you can point it out and show how the Phelps protest is in any way like the protests the case dealt with. Until Phelps impedes access, obstructs funerals, or grab attendees, again, your analogy will fail. These protesters were infringing on the rights of those they were protesting against to enter a public building.

Let's take a look

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.

Now, you have been shown how the ACLU supports protesters who don't obstruct, harass, or grab other people (like Phelps). They consistently support protests that are safe and legal and don't cross into physical harrassment. No double standard on their part.

Can you provide a clear explanation of the behavior of Phelps that the ACLU supports while condemning it by abortion protesters? Please be specific and show us how the ACLU doesn't support similar protests by abortion opponents.

 

[MachZer0]

It shows nothing of the sort. Phelps isn't blocking anyone from attending anything, unlike the abortion protestors the case was against. I must have missed the ouble standard, perhaps you can point it out and show how the Phelps protest is in any way like the protests the case dealt with. Until Phelps impedes access, obstructs funerals, or grab attendees, again, your analogy will fail. These protesters were infringing on the rights of those they were protesting against to enter a public building.

Let's take a look

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.

Now, you have been shown how the ACLU supports protesters who don't obstruct, harass, or grab other people (like Phelps). They consistently support protests that are safe and legal and don't cross into physical harrassment. No double standard on their part.

Can you provide a clear explanation of the behavior of Phelps that the ACLU supports while condemning it by abortion protesters? Please be specific and show us how the ACLU doesn't support similar protests by abortion opponents.

You need only look at the signs they carry and listen to the message they give at the protests. It's a no brainer frankly. Mothers burying their children deserve as much protection as mothers killing their children, at least

 

[george78]

Now, you have been shown how the ACLU supports protesters who don't obstruct, harass, or grab other people (like Phelps). They consistently support protests that are safe and legal and don't cross into physical harrassment. No double standard on their part.

Nope, don't try that one.

Phelps and company have NUMEROUS arrests on their records for assault, disorderly conduct, threats, harassment ect...

Phelp's first arrest came in 1951 DURING A PROTEST, where he ASSAULTED a police officer.

The Phelps clan has a long documented criminal history and history of violence, so there is NO WAY that the ACLU can be off the hook by playing that card.

They are trying to protect their favorite agent provocateur, nothing more.

 

[blueapplepaste]

[/I]Nope, don't try that one.

Phelps and company have NUMEROUS arrests on their records for assault, disorderly conduct, threats, harassment ect...

Phelp's first arrest came in 1951 DURING A PROTEST, where he ASSAULTED a police officer.

The Phelps clan has a long documented criminal history and history of violence, so there is NO WAY that the ACLU can be off the hook by playing that card.

They are trying to protect their favorite agent provocateur, nothing more.

Show me an instance where anyone from his gang physically assaulted or threatened someone in attendence at one of these funerals.

 

[MachZer0]

One can only imagine the outrage if Phelps were to expand his protests to include abortion clinics. Do you suppose the ACLU would defend Phelps then?

 

[pantsman52]

One can only imagine the outrage if Phelps were to expand his protests to include abortion clinics. Do you suppose the ACLU would defend Phelps then?

If he doesn't block the entrance or impede people from entering then why not?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You need only look at the signs they carry and listen to the message they give at the protests. It's a no brainer frankly.

Yes. Fred Phelps hurts your feelings, so he should be banned...

Fankly, Mach, you're starting to sound just like the liberals you despise with such vigor.

Mothers burying their children deserve as much protection as mothers killing their children, at least

And they have it. But I still haven't heard any cases of Phelps' group physically assaulting anyone.

 

[Nathan Poe]

One can only imagine the outrage if Phelps were to expand his protests to include abortion clinics. Do you suppose the ACLU would defend Phelps then?

Why not ask him to protest a clinic and we'll find out?

 

[Nathan Poe]

[/i]Nope, don't try that one.

Phelps and company have NUMEROUS arrests on their records for assault, disorderly conduct, threats, harassment ect...

Phelp's first arrest came in 1951 DURING A PROTEST, where he ASSAULTED a police officer.

The Phelps clan has a long documented criminal history and history of violence, so there is NO WAY that the ACLU can be off the hook by playing that card.

They are trying to protect their favorite agent provocateur, nothing more.

Even if this were relevent, now you've admitted that the law was enacted specifically to restirct the first amendment rights of one particular person and his associates. They might as well have just named it the "Anti-Phelps Law."

Does that sound like the sort of legislation we should be passing in this land of the formerly free?

 

[Oonna]

[/i]Nope, don't try that one.

Phelps and company have NUMEROUS arrests on their records for assault, disorderly conduct, threats, harassment ect...

Phelp's first arrest came in 1951 DURING A PROTEST, where he ASSAULTED a police officer.

The Phelps clan has a long documented criminal history and history of violence, so there is NO WAY that the ACLU can be off the hook by playing that card.

They are trying to protect their favorite agent provocateur, nothing more.

I think this man is repulsive, but dont you think you should have included a source or link?

 

[notto]

One can only imagine the outrage if Phelps were to expand his protests to include abortion clinics. Do you suppose the ACLU would defend Phelps then?

Based on there consistent support for safe and non-disruptive protests by other anti-abortion protesters, I'm guessing the would.

Why would you think they would not? They are not defending the message, they are making sure the messengers rights are not violated. That's what they do. That's what they have always done. That is what they will continue to do.

 

[k]

I find this thread to be hillarious. We should really send it/sell it to the Jon Stewart Show...the writers could have a field day with the falsehoods and hypocrisies.

I totally disagree w/ what the ACLU is doing but at least they are consistent.

Phelps IS the Right. He's just the naked version of it and that is what frightens some on the Right...they look at Phelps and think..."Is that what we REALLY look like?" This is the purpose for the falsehoods in the OP.

 

[george78]

Even if this were relevent, now you've admitted that the law was enacted specifically to restirct the first amendment rights of one particular person and his associates. They might as well have just named it the "Anti-Phelps Law."

Im curious as to how you made that incredible leap? I never made any such admission.

The law applies to ANYONE who wants to protest at funerals. I merely pointed out the numerous instances of violence that Phelps and Co have committed during their protests, to counter a claim made by those who support the ACLU that Phelps and Co are completely non-violent.

Does that sound like the sort of legislation we should be passing in this land of the formerly free?

Absolutely. Freedom of Speech never was absolute.

 

[george78]

I totally disagree w/ what the ACLU is doing but at least they are consistent.

Consistant is denying the free speech rights of pro-lifers, but supporting the "free speech" of their favorite agent provocateur.

Phelps IS the Right. He's just the naked version of it and that is what frightens some on the Right...they look at Phelps and think..."Is that what we REALLY look like?" This is the purpose for the falsehoods in the OP.

No, Phelps is a lifelong DEMOCRAT, a Liberal, and an agent provocateur. Denying it doesn't change reality.

The charade fell apart a while ago, so continuing to play the game only makes those who to continue to insist playing it, look silly.

The ACLU is just protecting one of their own.

 

[k]

Consistant is denying the free speech rights of pro-lifers, but supporting the "free speech" of their favorite agent provocateur.

Where is the evidence to back this up?

No, Phelps is a lifelong DEMOCRAT, a Liberal, and an agent provocateur. Denying it doesn't change reality.

The charade fell apart a while ago, so continuing to play the game only makes those who to continue to insist playing it, look silly.

The ACLU is just protecting one of their own.

I don't care what he registers as on an index card just like sometimes it does not matter what political icon posters have...it is their words and actions that reveal their political affections.

Phelps is the Right in every sense of the term and to deny that based on some loosely knit illusion of semantics is just a waste of time.

I believe the 2nd or 3rd post of this thread shows how the ACLU defends the Christian Right as well.

The reason why the ACLU is falsely painted as the "Left" is because it does fight for Constitutional equality and since the Right is in power is appears as though the Right is always being attacked.