The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

burrow_owl · Jul 29, 2006

The missouri bill seems to ban protests altogether. That's a clear violation of the First Amendment. The abortion bubble laws, by contrast, didn't.

notto · Jul 29, 2006

MachZer0 said:
If the bubble laws don't abridge free speech, then why not let the Missouri law stand in this case?

Because they were not enacted to prevent violence and 300 feet is a bit overkill unless Phelps can kill with his eyes.

The Missouri law was enacted specifically to kill free speech. Bubble laws are specifically enacted to prevent violence.

You really need to read some cases on the issue. This is all laid out pretty clearly in them.

Bubble laws were enacted after people were already being prevented from entering clinics, clinics were being damaged and people were being physically assaulted. They provided a minimum 'bubble' that does not stop those at the clinic from hearing the speech, but only from keeping those who are speaking from obstructing access.

Bubble laws have nothing to do with limited speech and they in effect don't limit speech in the venue the protesters choose.

The laws that prevent Phelps from speaking on public sidewalks outside of cemetaries do.

notto · Jul 29, 2006

MachZer0 said:
Yet the ones who merely want to express their views are restricted as well.

Not by any bubble zone the ACLU supports. The bubble zone the ACLU supported was specifically enacted against people who had done past violence or restricted access to clinics.

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

You should read this entire brief (instead of just quoting a small part of it out of context). It might prevent you from continuing to mis-represent the ACLU in your arguments. Each time you misrepresent what you are railing against, it just makes your argument look weaker. I'm just trying to help with your argument. Will you read the brief before you state anything else about the supposed ACLU position? Each of the misconceptions you have already put forward in this thread would have been cleared up with a bit of research beforehand.

[FONT=Book Antiqua,Times]At the same time, the ACLU has long been committed to preserving a woman’s right to reproductive choice. The ACLU has therefore participated in every major reproductive health care case decided by this Court over the past forty years, beginning with Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), and extending through Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and its progeny. We have also consistently argued in this context and in others that constitutional rights can quickly become meaningless if they cannot be exercised without running a gauntlet of violence, intimidation and harassment. Accordingly, the ACLU supported passage of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), 18 U.S.C. §248. Likewise, we agreed with this Court's view in Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), that specific clinic protestors who had engaged in prior unlawful conduct could be subject to a narrowly crafted injunction imposing reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on their demonstration activity.[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua,Times]First, unlike the comparable provisions in Schenck and Madsen, the floating buffer zone created by the Colorado law cannot be described as content-neutral. On this issue, the fact that Colorado proceeded by statute rather than by injunction works against the state rather than in its favor. In both Schenck and Madsen, this Court emphasized that the challenged injunctions were directed against particular defendants because of their prior misconduct and did not depend in any way on the content of their future speech. Here, by contrast, the floating buffer is generally applicable to everyone who seeks to engage in "oral protest, education or counseling," regardless of whether they have previously engaged in past misconduct. Conversely, the floating buffer can be penetrated with impunity by someone who is merely seeking directions to the closest bus stop, for example. Especially when read in conjunction with the statute's general ban on obstructing or hindering entry to or exit from an abortion clinic, the conclusion seems inescapable that the focus on "oral protest, education or counseling" distinguishes among speakers based on what they are saying and not on what they are doing. Such distinctions are plainly content-based and trigger strict scrutiny, a standard that no one has argued this statute can meet.[/FONT]

MachZer0 · Jul 29, 2006

nvxplorer said:
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.

The meeting we were discussing was not a closed door session, so it is indeed irrelevant to the topic on hand

MachZer0 · Jul 29, 2006

notto said:
The Missouri law was enacted specifically to kill free speech. Bubble laws are specifically enacted to prevent violence.

The Missouri law did not restrict Phelps from having his say. It merely prevented him from disrupting funerals while saying it. Very similar to the bubble zones around abortion clinics

nvxplorer · Jul 29, 2006

MachZer0 said:
The meeting we were discussing was not a closed door session, so it is indeed irrelevant to the topic on hand

Round and round we go.

Nonsense, Mach. I know it; you know it; we all know it.

Assert, rationalize, deny, repeat. Have fun arguing in circles.

notto · Jul 29, 2006

MachZer0 said:
The Missouri law did not restrict Phelps from having his say. It merely prevented him from disrupting funerals while saying it. Very similar to the bubble zones around abortion clinics

By this reasoning, they could limit speech anywhere except in your own home by calling it 'disruptive'. Thanks for making the point MachZero.

They are not similar because the they were not enacted under the same consequences, did not have the same intended results, only one was argued for to limit speech, and they do not have the same restrictions for enaction.

Suggesting that they are the same in nature or scope shows that you are just desperate to make your case, smear the ACLU, and are not really interested in the details of what we are discussing here.

I'll leave it up to the readers to read the references, the ACLU's actual position, the differences in their position between Phelps and abortion clinic protesters, and hopefully the readers of this thread will understand that the ACLU has consistently stood up for the rights of citizens on both sides of a picket line and that those that try to smear their work can only do so with distortion and emotional appeal.

[FONT=Book Antiqua,Times]To survive intermediate scrutiny under this Court's current test, a statute regulating speech must be content-neutral, it must be narrowly tailored to advance a significant government interest, and it must leave open ample alternative avenues of communication

[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua,Times]The underlying theme in all these cases is that a state must craft its statutes narrowly when regulating speech, and the interests it seeks to advance must be unrelated to the suppression of expression[/FONT]

On that, I'm bowing out of the thread. I have no interest in repetetive argument when one side ignores what has already been provided or refuses to at least research the topic enough to put forward an accurate description of what they are arguing against instead of a strawman or misrepresentation.

seebs · Jul 29, 2006

MachZer0 said:
The Missouri law did not restrict Phelps from having his say. It merely prevented him from disrupting funerals while saying it. Very similar to the bubble zones around abortion clinics

No, very dissimilar.

The people protesting at clinics can easily and clearly communicate with people going to or from the clinics.

Missouri was preventing Phelps from communicating with people at funerals. Not just from hitting them; from talking to them at all.

The zone was large enough to prevent communication. The clinic law zones are only large enough to prevent physical violence.

64kSim · Jul 29, 2006

seebs said:
No, very dissimilar.

The people protesting at clinics can easily and clearly communicate with people going to or from the clinics.

Missouri was preventing Phelps from communicating with people at funerals. Not just from hitting them; from talking to them at all.

The zone was large enough to prevent communication. The clinic law zones are only large enough to prevent physical violence.

I guess the concept of a silent protest has been lost on some.
Really I think the bigger question is how does the existence of homosexuals lead to war in Iraq?

There is no link anyone that buys in to that line of logic here is my singular responce

TeddyKGB · Jul 29, 2006

MachZer0 said:
The Missouri law did not restrict Phelps from having his say. It merely prevented him from disrupting funerals while saying it. Very similar to the bubble zones around abortion clinics

Have you ever been to a clinic where protestors are stationed within their zone? It is anything but non-disruptive.

64kSim · Jul 29, 2006

TeddyKGB said:
Have you ever been to a clinic where protestors are stationed within their zone? It is anything but non-disruptive.

Of course it is disruptive.
That is the nature of a protest. That is why this would a touchy subject at what point does that disruptiveness infringe on the other party(ies) such that it must not be allowed.

TeddyKGB · Jul 29, 2006

64kSim said:
Of course it is disruptive.
That is the nature of a protest. That is why this would a touchy subject at what point does that disruptiveness infringe on the other party(ies) such that it must not be allowed.

I know. MZ implied that clinic bubble laws prevent disruptions. They don't.

george78 · Jul 29, 2006

Not by any bubble zone the ACLU supports. The bubble zone the ACLU supported was specifically enacted against people who had done past violence or restricted access to clinics.

Phelps and his group have a past history of violence at their protests, so why isn't the ACLU supporting a bubble zone for them?

Hypocrisy?

Nathan Poe · Jul 29, 2006

george78 said:
Phelps and his group have a past history of violence at their protests, so why isn't the ACLU supporting a bubble zone for them?

Hypocrisy?

Phelps has gotten violent at a funeral protest? I hadn't heard. Link, please?

MachZer0 · Jul 29, 2006

george78 said:
Phelps and his group have a past history of violence at their protests, so why isn't the ACLU supporting a bubble zone for them?

Hypocrisy?
[/size][/color][/font]

Hypocrisy indeed. When the message is offensive, like the pro-life message, an excuse can be found to silence it. But when the message is anti-Bush FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!! FREE SPEECH is all we here

CommonCents · Jul 29, 2006

MachZer0 said:
Hypocrisy indeed. When the message is offensive, like the pro-life message, an excuse can be found to silence it. But when the message is anti-Bush FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!! FREE SPEECH is all we here

Actually the only pro-lifers that should be banned from protesting are the ones violently attacking women or bombing the clinics.

AFAIK Phelps is non-violent. So in that case he is well within his rights as an american. Stupid as he may be. Just like pro-lifers.

ACougar · Jul 30, 2006

He's the ugly, hateful, canary no one likes, in the mineshaft of our liberty. (I should be a writer for "The Tick.")

Nathan Poe · Jul 30, 2006

CommonCents said:
Actually the only pro-lifers that should be banned from protesting are the ones violently attacking women or bombing the clinics.

Many of these movements have histories of violence, and many are quite peaceful in their demonstrations, but none of them are owning up to say who's who.

AFAIK Phelps is non-violent. So in that case he is well within his rights as an american. Stupid as he may be. Just like pro-lifers.

But Mach's point is that Phelps is offensive -- Freddy boy hurts his feelings, so laws should be passed against him.

Nathan Poe · Jul 30, 2006

MachZer0 said:
Hypocrisy indeed. When the message is offensive, like the pro-life message, an excuse can be found to silence it.

"The excuse" being that the stated goal of all of these protesters is to prevent women from receiving medical treatment -- some by any means necessary.

How many pipe bombs has Phelps planted?

But when the message is anti-Bush FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!! FREE SPEECH is all we here

Ah, so this is some kind of conspiracy against El Presidente?

seebs · Jul 30, 2006

george78 said:
Phelps and his group have a past history of violence at their protests, so why isn't the ACLU supporting a bubble zone for them?

Hypocrisy?
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

I've never once heard of the Phelps people initiating violence.

Given that, by most accounts, they are funded off lawsuits they file when they are able to provoke others into violence, that would be very surprising.

Anyway, if you can point me to documentation of any of the Phelps crew being violent, I'd be fascinated to see it.

(Phelps beating his kids doesn't count. It's not part of his protests.)

Every person I've talked to who has been to a clinic protest pre-bubble saw physical violence against clinic staff or patrons. I've never heard a single report other than yours of violence by the Phelps crew, and given how much everyone loves to hate him, I'd guess it'd be a major topic of discussion.

The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

Senior Contributor

Legend

Legend

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Senior Contributor

Legend

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Active Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Loathed

Well-Known Member

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

New Member

U.S. Army Retired

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency