The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[Nathan Poe]

But this thread is about the ACLU fighting to allow him to interfere with funerals.

He's not interfering, only protesting. Has he physically blocked a casket?

 

[MachZer0]

He's not interfering, only protesting. Has he physically blocked a casket?

Is that the only definition for interfering, blocking the casket. A funeral is a very private, emotional moment. To have someone standing near the graveside expressing gratitude, even with a megaphone, waving signs saying the same thing is indeed interfering. Caertainly those grieving families deserve a little privacy. Phelps certainly can be restricted to a safe distance allowing him his right to speak and allowing the family it's rights as well.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Is that the only definition for interfering, blocking the casket.

The only one the law cares about.

A funeral is a very private, emotional moment. To have someone standing near the graveside expressing gratitude, even with a megaphone, waving signs saying the same thing is indeed interfering.

Offensive, absolutely, but the show goes on, so to speak. When Phelps obstructs a procession, wrestles a pallbearer to the ground, or plants a pipebomb in a casket, then he's interfering, by a legal definition.

Caertainly those grieving families deserve a little privacy. Phelps certainly can be restricted to a safe distance allowing him his right to speak and allowing the family it's rights as well.

"Safe distance"? we've already established that he's not doing anything dangerous -- so there's no need for safety.

The fact is, Mach, you want Phelps taken out of the way because you find him offensive. I never figured you for that brand of Politically Correct Liberalism.

 

[seebs]

But this thread is about the ACLU fighting to allow him to interfere with funerals.

No.

It's about letting him SPEAK NEAR FUNERALS.

Not interfere. No flying tackles for the pallbearers. No people swarming around the priest and pawing at him.

In short, none of the stuff that we see at abortion clinics when there isn't an enforced "safety zone".

 

[seebs]

Is that the only definition for interfering, blocking the casket.

It's the only definition comparable to, or relevant to, the restrictions on clinic protests.

A funeral is a very private, emotional moment.

And an abortion necessarily isn't? Come on.

To have someone standing near the graveside expressing gratitude, even with a megaphone, waving signs saying the same thing is indeed interfering. Caertainly those grieving families deserve a little privacy. Phelps certainly can be restricted to a safe distance allowing him his right to speak and allowing the family it's rights as well.

Morally, they have such rights. Legally, free speech wins.

Just as, morally, clinic protestors are by and large despicable and willfully disruptive, dishonest, and all-out reprehensible, but legally, they're allowed as long as they aren't physically obstructing people. (Of course, because they'll agree to not obstruct people, then obstruct them anyway, that's grown into a "safety zone".)

But the fact is, Phelps is doing less to intrude than clinic protestors do. Now, we might argue that his behavior is morally dramatically worse; I certainly won't defend the moral qualities of anything Phelps has done in the last decade. But the law doesn't, and shouldn't, care what I think is moral. What it cares about is whether people are being denied their freedoms.

In the case of Phelps, he is not preventing anyone from having a funeral, and his behavior, while well past odious into a good argument for belief in supernatural evil, does not actually interfere with other people any more than other loud noises do.

In the case of the clinic protestors, they actively and consistently interfere as much as they are allowed to, and often a bit more.

 

[MachZer0]

The only one the law cares about.



Offensive, absolutely, but the show goes on, so to speak. When Phelps obstructs a procession, wrestles a pallbearer to the ground, or plants a pipebomb in a casket, then he's interfering, by a legal definition.



"Safe distance"? we've already established that he's not doing anything dangerous -- so there's no need for safety.

The fact is, Mach, you want Phelps taken out of the way because you find him offensive. I never figured you for that brand of Politically Correct Liberalism.

It's funny, we just saw a woman carried out of the Capitol bldg for speaking her mind while the Prime Minister from Iraq was giving a speech. So there does appear to be limits to expressing one's opinion. Why can't that limit apply to the families of our fallen heroes?

 

[MachZer0]

It's the only definition comparable to, or relevant to, the restrictions on clinic protests.

Not all abortion protesters interefered physically with the clinics. Yet the ones who merely want to express their views are restricted as well.

 

[burrow_owl]

The protestor was at a government function; Phelps etal want to protest on public property that's open to everyone. That marks the difference between protected speech and non-protected speech.

 

[nvxplorer]

Why can't that limit apply to the families of our fallen heroes?

It does. If you dispense with the false analogies, you may be able to see that.

 

[seebs]

Then why not x number of feet from a funeral as well?

As has been previously explained: Those boundaries were set based on physical assaults by "pro-life" people. The current limits reflect a distance at which the protestors very rarely tackle people or otherwise physically harm them.

If the protestors had not consistently physically interfered, there would not be any need for such a boundary.

Similarly, if Phelps and his gang start physically interfering, they will probably end up facing a boundary zone of the same sort.

 

[seebs]

Not all abortion protesters interefered physically with the clinics. Yet the ones who merely want to express their views are restricted as well.

Yup. That's because the ones who do physically interfere pretend to be the other sort.

The only way to keep a woman 8-months pregnant from being pushed to the ground or tackled while she's on her way to prenatal care is to keep EVERYONE at a distance.

The world is full of cases where a few jerks have ruined things for everyone. Too bad, so sad. Best way to avoid this would probably be for the pro-life groups to take any kind of action at all to reduce the damage these people do. Instead, they have been actively defended and promoted, and lauded as heroes.

So, well. There you have it.

 

[MachZer0]

The protestor was at a government function; Phelps etal want to protest on public property that's open to everyone. That marks the difference between protected speech and non-protected speech.

A governement function is a public function

 

[burrow_owl]

The restrictions on abortion protestors were pretty mild. They provided for a small space for people to get in and out safely, while allowing the protestors to be close enough to be heard and seen. (the distance to be maintained is usually under 20 feet).

By contrast, the point of the bill banning Phelps eliminates the point of protesting: they have to be so far away that the protest is invisible.

 

[burrow_owl]

Government functions aren't public in the sense that anyone can enter and do whatever they want, as they might at a public park.

This is just common sense, guy, not rocket science.

 

[MachZer0]

Yup. That's because the ones who do physically interfere pretend to be the other sort.

The only way to keep a woman 8-months pregnant from being pushed to the ground or tackled while she's on her way to prenatal care is to keep EVERYONE at a distance.

The world is full of cases where a few jerks have ruined things for everyone. Too bad, so sad. Best way to avoid this would probably be for the pro-life groups to take any kind of action at all to reduce the damage these people do. Instead, they have been actively defended and promoted, and lauded as heroes.

So, well. There you have it.

So you see the law as similar to Kindergarten. The whole class gets punished when one or two are disruptive. There are other laws that deal with pushing pregnant women to the ground, blocking access to buildings, etc. So abortion protesters could be allowed their rights to speech without the buffer zones, but that just doesn't fit the ACLU agenda, which is in tight with the pro abortion crowd

 

[burrow_owl]

The bubble laws, as they're known, are preventative. Rather than prosecute someone for shoving someone, the law is aimed at preventing violence in the first place. I really don't see any problem with that, since it's not abridging free speech in any way. The protests can continue, and people can in and out of the clinics. Everyone wins.

 

[nvxplorer]

A governement function is a public function

Meaning what? That the public enjoys the same rights at all government functions? I'll expect your report on the next closed-door Senate session.

 

[MachZer0]

The bubble laws, as they're known, are preventative. Rather than prosecute someone for shoving someone, the law is aimed at preventing violence in the first place. I really don't see any problem with that, since it's not abridging free speech in any way. The protests can continue, and people can in and out of the clinics. Everyone wins.

If the bubble laws don't abridge free speech, then why not let the Missouri law stand in this case?

 

[MachZer0]

Meaning what? That the public enjoys the same rights at all government functions? I'll expect your report on the next closed-door Senate session.

This situation was not a closed door Senate session, so the point is moot.

 

[nvxplorer]

This situation was not a closed door Senate session, so the point is moot.

It is entirely relevant. As you stated, "A government function is a public function." A closed-door session is a government function. According to you, it is therefore a public function. Good luck getting invited to speak.