The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[george78]

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

I already provided documentation about numerous Phelps/Phelps clan related violent incidents at various protests.

It's not just Phelps who has a criminal record stemming from these protests, but also members of his clan.

I am sick and tired of my documentation being ignored with a request for "linky?"

I take that as a implication that I am lying.

I already provided several sources, including several good books.
Along with links to the SPLCenter.

I don't need to provide more "linkys".

 

[george78]

So, he's never been convicted of assault, not during a protest or any other time. Thank you for confirming what we've said.

That's patently not true, and if you had read the information that both Mach and I have provided, you would see that not only has Phelps himself been arrested and convicted as a result of various actions INCLUDING ASSAULT at various protests, so have members of his clan, including his grandson.

 

[george78]

Everything that I have said about Phelps is well documented. I don't think that I am supposed to be doing other people's research for them.

I sincerely hope this isn't an attempt to suggest that I am lying in some way about this stuff.

In any case, in an attempt to be civil, I'll point you to some sources.

One of the best books on this subject is

"Fred Phelps versus Topeka." by Rick Musser. University of Press Kansas. 2000.

Your going to have to go to a library to get that one. (Much of the stuff I stated is documented there.)

I can't specifically link you to some of the actual fliers that Phelps put out about Conservative Leaders like Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and Conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, without violating forum rules.

Do a quick google search on these topics and you'll find more than enough.

The Southern Poverty Law Center also has a lot of his arrested Documented in a time-line:

http://www.splcenter.org/

There is more on in Rick Musser's book:

------------------------------
Phelps was first arrested in 1951 and found guilty of misdemeanor battery after attacking a Pasadena police officer. He has since been arrested for assault, battery, threats, trespassing, disorderly conduct, contempt of court, and several other charges; each time, he (along with Westboro and its other members) has filed suit against the city, the police, and the arresting officers.

Phelps' 1995 conviction for assault and battery carried a five-year prison sentence, with a mandatory 18 months to be served before he became eligible for parole. Phelps fought to be allowed to remain free until his appeals process went through. Days away from being arrested and sent to prison, a judge ruled that Phelps had been denied a speedy trial and that he was not required to serve any time.

---------------------------------

A limited number of his criminal history is documented on the Noteable Names Database (NNDB.com):

Assault 1951
Defamation 1993
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 27-Mar-1992
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 22-Jun-1993
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 7-Jul-1994, convicted
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 29-Oct-1995, acquitted
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 18-Feb-1998

--------------------


1995: A Phelps grandson, Benjamin, spits on a passerby during a picket and is convicted of misdemeanor battery.

--------------------------

There is more documented in the book: "Addicted to Hate".

Everything that I have said is documented. This type of evidence is what has led even very leftist folks to finally start realizing that Phelps is an agent provocateur.


------------------------------

Here is all the documentation again. Folks are going to have to fess up that the ACLU is guilty of hypocrisy here, as Phelps has a documented history of violence as his protests.

 

[MachZer0]

There is more on in Rick Musser's book:

------------------------------
Phelps was first arrested in 1951 and found guilty of misdemeanor battery after attacking a Pasadena police officer. He has since been arrested for assault, battery, threats, trespassing, disorderly conduct, contempt of court, and several other charges; each time, he (along with Westboro and its other members) has filed suit against the city, the police, and the arresting officers.

Phelps' 1995 conviction for assault and battery carried a five-year prison sentence, with a mandatory 18 months to be served before he became eligible for parole. Phelps fought to be allowed to remain free until his appeals process went through. Days away from being arrested and sent to prison, a judge ruled that Phelps had been denied a speedy trial and that he was not required to serve any time.

---------------------------------

A limited number of his criminal history is documented on the Noteable Names Database (NNDB.com):

Assault 1951
Defamation 1993
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 27-Mar-1992
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 22-Jun-1993
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 7-Jul-1994, convicted
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 29-Oct-1995, acquitted
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 18-Feb-1998

--------------------


1995: A Phelps grandson, Benjamin, spits on a passerby during a picket and is convicted of misdemeanor battery.

--------------------------

There is more documented in the book: "Addicted to Hate".

Everything that I have said is documented. This type of evidence is what has led even very leftist folks to finally start realizing that Phelps is an agent provocateur.


------------------------------

Here is all the documentation again. Folks are going to have to fess up that the ACLU is guilty of hypocrisy here, as Phelps has a documented history of violence as his protests.

Based on the criteria demanded here by some, that should be more than enough for the ACLU to support a bubble zone

 

[notto]

Based on the criteria demanded here by some, that should be more than enough for the ACLU to support a bubble zone

And they just might if that is what has been proposed by the law that is in place. That is not what the law they are contesting specifies.

It was not enacted to create a small zone to reduce the chance of physical confrontation. It creates a large zone to limit the speech of the protesters (any protesters and not just those who have been physically abusive in the past).

That is the difference between this and bubble zones at abortion clinics you keep missing (even though it has been pointed out). This law cannot be compared to abortion clinic bubble laws because the context, limit, reason for inacting, and who it limits are completely different. It was not put in place to protect the physical safety of those attending funerals. If it had, the ACLU may certainly have supported it, just like they support the abortion clinic bubble zones. They current law is excessive if that was it's intent. The ACLU is fairly consistent so there is no reason that they would not support a reasonable bubble zone for historically violent protesters. Too bad somebody doesn't propose that as an option but instead is limiting the free speech of citizens.

You seem to be suggesting that they would not support a limited bubble zone. You certainly are not basing that on their past actions or anyting to do with the current case. That's not what the current case is about.

They would probably use the same rational that they used when they supported clinic bubble zones.

[FONT=Book Antiqua,Times]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.[/FONT]

[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=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][/FONT]

 

[MachZer0]

And they just might if that is what has been proposed by the law that is in place. That is not what the law they are contesting specifies.

It was not enacted to create a small zone to reduce the chance of physical confrontation. It creates a large zone to limit the speech of the protesters (any protesters and not just those who have been physically abusive in the past).

That is the difference between this and bubble zones at abortion clinics you keep missing (even though it has been pointed out). This law cannot be compared to abortion clinic bubble laws because the context, limit, reason for inacting, and who it limits are completely different. It was not put in place to protect the physical safety of those attending funerals. If it had, the ACLU may certainly have supported it, just like they support the abortion clinic bubble zones. They current law is excessive if that was it's intent. The ACLU is fairly consistent so there is no reason that they would not support a reasonable bubble zone for historically violent protesters. Too bad somebody doesn't propose that as an option but instead is limiting the free speech of citizens.

You seem to be suggesting that they would not support a limited bubble zone. You certainly are not basing that on their past actions or anyting to do with the current case. That's not what the current case is about.

The Missouri law is a limited bubble zone. And it does not prevent Phelps speaking whatever he wishes. It merely prevents Phelps from interfering with the funeral service itself

 

[notto]

The Missouri law is a limited bubble zone.

But it does not have the same rational or purpose or limitations that abortion clinic bubble zones have which is why the ACLU won't support it and is contesting it as a freedom of speech issue. It goes well beyond what is needed to prevent violence and is based on limiting speech, not preventing violence.

They are not the same legally, or in the way they are enforced and limited.

You can keep asserting that they are but you are just using misrepresentations to again try to taint the ACLU stance.

The ACLU is consistent in its rational in cases like this and until a reasonable bubble zone to prevent violence is suggested that only penalizes those who have physically assulted citizens in the past it would simply not be appropriate to suggest the ACLU wouldn't support one.

 

[nvxplorer]

Of course it does, but the idea of one more Supreme Court appt by Bush strikes fear in the hearts of our liberal friends

Nope.

You: Everybody has the power to interpret the Constitution, but not everybody has the power to enforce it. that's why the Roberts Court will likely make the ACLU's interpretation inconsequential, in due time.

The power to interpret the Constitution is given to the Court. You can read anything you want into it, but you have no power of interpretation.

Enforcement is a power given to the the Executive branch, not the Court.

Finishing with "That's why..." makes no sense whatsoever.

Thinking that the ACLU has any bearing on the Court's rulings in nonsense. The ACLU simply represents defendants and plaintiffs. The Court makes rulings based on the merits of the cases presented, not on whether the ACLU is involved.

 

[MachZer0]

But it does not have the same rational or purpose or limitations that abortion clinic bubble zones have which is why the ACLU won't support it and is contesting it as a freedom of speech issue. It goes well beyond what is needed to prevent violence and is based on limiting speech, not preventing violence.

Constitutionally, what are the guidelines for bubble zones?

The ACLU is consistent in its rational in cases like this

What about its irrational cases

and until a reasonable bubble zone to prevent violence is suggested that only penalizes those who have physically assulted citizens in the past it would simply not be appropriate to suggest the ACLU wouldn't support one.

What would a easonable bubble zone look like?

 

[notto]

Constitutionally, what are the guidelines for bubble zones?

That they are instituted to prevent violence by known offenders and are not put in place to limit speech or venue.

What would a easonable bubble zone look like?

One that is instituted to prevent violence by known offenders and are not put in place to limit speech or venue.

The ACLU's rational has been repeated a few times in this thread. It states it fairly clearly.

[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=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][/FONT]

 

[Nathan Poe]

Based on the criteria demanded here by some, that should be more than enough for the ACLU to support a bubble zone

A few old arrests for disorderly conduct, and his grandson once hocked a loogie at someone.

And that, somehow, rises to the same levels as wrestling a pregnant woman to the ground, chaining oneself to clinic doors, and the occasional molotov cocktail.

Face it, Phelps still isn't nearly the same class of danger as the zealous anti-abortion protester.

 

[MachZer0]

That they are instituted to prevent violence by known offenders and are not put in place to limit speech or venue.

The speech in thisa case would not be limited, and venues are limited all the time. We just recently saw a female protester forcibly removed from a meeting, so ordered by a Congressman. And, as previosly demonstrated and documented, Phelps and his followers are violent at times and are known (convicted) offenders.


The ACLU's rational has been repeated a few times in this thread. It states it fairly clearly.

[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=Book Antiqua,Times]

[/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][/FONT][/quote]

 

[MachZer0]

A few old arrests for disorderly conduct, and his grandson once hocked a loogie at someone.

And that, somehow, rises to the same levels as wrestling a pregnant woman to the ground, chaining oneself to clinic doors, and the occasional molotov cocktail.

Face it, Phelps still isn't nearly the same class of danger as the zealous anti-abortion protester.

So then it would appear that the ACLU is cool with a little bit of violence. How much violence is necessary before the ACLU supports bubble zones?

 

[notto]

The speech in thisa case would not be limited, and venues are limited all the time. We just recently saw a female protester forcibly removed from a meeting, so ordered by a Congressman. And, as previosly demonstrated and documented, Phelps and his followers are violent at times and are known (convicted) offenders.

The law restricts peaceful protest on public property. That limits speech and prevents all protest, not just disruptive ones. The law is vague and interpretation is subjective. It most certainly will be struck down because it is vague, serves no public good or safety concern, and limits speech.

The issue with the congressional meeting was addressed earlier in the thread. They are not the same type of venue nor do they have the same restrictions.

Also, non-disruptive protest is allowed in the meeting venue you hold up as an example so it is another poor analogy. The Missiori law would prohibit that as well if we were to take your analogy as valid.

You can't remove someone from a sidewalk for simply holding a sign and suggest that it is not a limitation on speech, venue, and message or that it was in the interest of public safety. That you keep doing so using poor analogies (that really deal with different issues) seems to show that either your argument is weak or that you are not familiar with precident and the nature of the laws you are trying to use as comparisons.

If someone is disrupting a public event, there are already laws (not based on the content of the protest or disturbance) that could be used to arrest the protester and stop the disturbance. If this was just addressing disturbances, the new law would not be needed. This is a limit of all speech, disruptive or not, in a public place not influenced by the event of a funeral and not part of the funeral venue.

 

[notto]

So then it would appear that the ACLU is cool with a little bit of violence. How much violence is necessary before the ACLU supports bubble zones?

When has Phelps hurt anybody attending or prevented anyone from attending a funeral? You seem to be suggesting that there is an actual event that would seem to be condoned by the ACLU related to funeral protests (which is what this law addresses). Can you provide some detail of that event and show how it is relevent to a law that forbids all protest peaceful or not around a funeral? You sure seem to be suggesting a lot of things about the ACLU that really don't fit their demonstrated history of consistent support for the rights of people on both sides of a protest. Was violence used as a reason for the Missouri law? If so, can you provide some detail about how it was used?

Bubble zones were only put in place when there was ample evidence that protesters where preventing people from entering a clinic through violent means. If you can show that is the case with funeral protests, then you mgiht have a comparison. As it stands, you are talking about two very different and unrelated things.

 

[MachZer0]

The law restricts peaceful protest on public property. That limits speech and prevents all protest, not just disruptive ones. The law is vague and interpretation is subjective. It most certainly will be struck down because it is vague, serves no public good or safety concern, and limits speech.

The issue with the congressional meeting was addressed earlier in the thread. They are not the same type of venue nor do they have the same restrictions.

Also, non-disruptive protest is allowed in the meeting venue you hold up as an example so it is another poor analogy. The Missiori law would prohibit that as well if we were to take your analogy as valid.

You can't remove someone from a sidewalk for simply holding a sign and suggest that it is not a limitation on speech, venue, and message or that it was in the interest of public safety. That you keep doing so using poor analogies (that really deal with different issues) seems to show that either your argument is weak or that you are not familiar with precident and the nature of the laws you are trying to use as comparisons.

If someone is disrupting a public event, there are already laws (not based on the content of the protest or disturbance) that could be used to arrest the protester and stop the disturbance. If this was just addressing disturbances, the new law would not be needed. This is a limit of all speech, disruptive or not, in a public place not influenced by the event of a funeral and not part of the funeral venue.

As I've said, when the message is offensive, an excuse for suppression can always be found, yet when the message is agreeable, any restriction is abhorrent. The ACLU has demonstrated that "loud and clear" in this case.

 

[notto]

As I've said, when the message is offensive, an excuse for suppression can always be found, yet when the message is agreeable, any restriction is abhorrent. The ACLU has demonstrated that "loud and clear" in this case.

I agree. It is abhorrent that free speech is being supressed on public sidewalks for no good reason other than it is offensive to some.

The ACLU has consistently said that loud and clear (while the rally call from the right still remains "you don't have the right to not be offended").

I'm glad you have come around and realize that restricting a message simply because it might be offensive to some is certainly a bad thing to do. That is why it is so great the abortion protesters still have the right to protest at clinics but they just can't block the door or prevent people from entering (or beat them down to the ground). Their message is indeed offensive and the ACLU has made sure that people who think like the Missouri legislature don't violate their rights simply for that reason.

With thinking like Missouri's, the next thing you know, protests will be illegal for things like immigration, vigils for life support patients and those on death row, or even protests at Gay Pride parades and other common venues. The certainly are offending someone.

Thank goodness the ACLU won't let that abhorrent supression of speech happen and supports the civil rights of all Americans, even those I disagree with.

Too bad the erosion of those civil rights t is already happening in Missouri (but probably not for long).

 

[Nathan Poe]

As I've said, when the message is offensive, an excuse for suppression can always be found,

And those excuses need to be shown for what they truly are -- violations of the First Amendment.

yet when the message is agreeable, any restriction is abhorrent.

It's been my experience that "agreeable" speech doesn't need a First Amendment -- Only speech that somebody finds offensive gets targeted by censors.

The ACLU has demonstrated that "loud and clear" in this case.

Yes they have -- Everyone has a right to speak, as long as they're not doing it dangerously.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So then it would appear that the ACLU is cool with a little bit of violence. How much violence is necessary before the ACLU supports bubble zones?

Well, probably something more than a gob of spit.

Perhaps when Phelps starts planting explosives in Funeral homes, or starts wrestling pallbearers to the sidewalk, he might actually be a threat to somebody.

As it is, he's about as threatening as a cloudy day.

 

[MachZer0]

Well, probably something more than a gob of spit.

Perhaps when Phelps starts planting explosives in Funeral homes, or starts wrestling pallbearers to the sidewalk, he might actually be a threat to somebody.

As it is, he's about as threatening as a cloudy day.

Oh? There is a record of clouds being convicted of assault and battery?