The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[Nathan Poe]

So, do you find spitting on people an approprite means of protest?

So, are you going to admit that you can't answer my question?

Phelps and his group have also demonstrated that they will take actions which are illegal, yet, many on the left have come to his defense.

Yes, many illegal actions -- I'm sure he double-parked his car as well.

How many illegal actions have they taken during funeral protests?

 

[MachZer0]

So, are you going to admit that you can't answer my question?

Supposing that the worst offense committed by Phelps was spitting at those he protested, would that be acceptable to you as a form of protest, meaning that the subjects of the protest did not deserve protection?

Yes, many illegal actions -- I'm sure he double-parked his car as well.

How many illegal actions have they taken during funeral protests?

There are mAny protestors at abortion clinics who have never committed any acts of violence and have protested in nothing other than a peaceful manner, and yet they are bound by the bubble zones as well. A clear double standard

 

[Nathan Poe]

Supposing that the worst offense committed by Phelps was spitting at those he protested, would that be acceptable to you as a form of protest, meaning that the subjects of the protest did not deserve protection?

Of course spitting is not acceptible. But if that were the case, a bubble zone would be excessive. Unless the point was to censor the message, and the act of spitting was irrelevent.

And You still can't tell me exactly what he did, or how much time her actucally served. Very telling...

There are mAny protestors at abortion clinics who have never committed any acts of violence and have protested in nothing other than a peaceful manner, and yet they are bound by the bubble zones as well. A clear double standard

Many protestors have never committed any acts of violence, and never blocked an entrance to a health clinic, because of the bubble zones.

And the abortion bubble zones are a lot more reasonable than the ones enacted against Phelps. You still haven't shown that he ever did anythng at a funeral protest.

 

[MachZer0]

Of course spitting is not acceptible. But if that were the case, a bubble zone would be excessive. Unless the point was to censor the message, and the act of spitting was irrelevent.

So based on his history of convictions, what would be acceptable as a bubble zone?

And You still can't tell me exactly what he did, or how much time her actucally served. Very telling...

The information was provided and included assault and battery on police officers. Part of Phelps scam is to incite others to commit acts against him and his group. That way they can file civil suits, many of which are settled, providing a source of income to finance his protests.

Many protestors have never committed any acts of violence, and never blocked an entrance to a health clinic, because of the bubble zones.

That has no relevance to the peaceful protesters who are restricted by the double standard bubble zones

And the abortion bubble zones are a lot more reasonable than the ones enacted against Phelps. You still haven't shown that he ever did anythng at a funeral protest.

Yes, more reasonable because of the message.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So based on his history of convictions, what would be acceptable as a bubble zone?

At issue is bubble zones for funerals, so we need to look at not so much his history (unless we're conceeding that this law is against Phelps, and not for anyone's protection), but the history of incidents at funeral protests in general.

Hmmm... None.

We don't need a slide rule to figure that one out!

The information was provided and included assault and battery on police officers.

Still not hearing the part about how much time her served...

Part of Phelps scam is to incite others to commit acts against him and his group. That way they can file civil suits, many of which are settled, providing a source of income to finance his protests.

And a clever scam it is -- way to work the system in this litiguous society.
Courts care little about the childish "he started it!" blather, but rather focus on the issue of who throws the first punch (or rock, or bullet, or whatever)

Clever, but irrelevent.

That has no relevance to the peaceful protesters who are restricted by the double standard bubble zones

organized protesters with a history of being infiltrated by violent zealots. Do they have a legal right to block the door?

Yes, more reasonable because of the message.

Because of the medium. Anti-Abortion protestors, as a rule, have a far greater history of violence at clinic protests than Phelps has at funerals.

 

[MachZer0]

At issue is bubble zones for funerals, so we need to look at not so much his history (unless we're conceeding that this law is against Phelps, and not for anyone's protection), but the history of incidents at funeral protests in general.

The law is to protect the privacy of the family and friends of the deceased at a very private moment. The law does nothing to restrict anyone's right to free speech. Phelps is free to say whatever he wishes

Because of the medium. Anti-Abortion protestors, as a rule, have a far greater history of violence at clinic protests than Phelps has at funerals.

That argument is like saying a child molester who found victims at parks is safe around schools because he never picked up any victims at schools. It just doesn't fly

 

[Nathan Poe]

The law is to protect the privacy of the family and friends of the deceased at a very private moment. The law does nothing to restrict anyone's right to free speech. Phelps is free to say whatever he wishes

And he is free to say it where he wishes as well -- as are we all. Cemetaries are open to the public. The issue is whether a funeral is legally entitled to any more protection than any other event held on public land.

That argument is like saying a child molester who found victims at parks is safe around schools because he never picked up any victims at schools. It just doesn't fly

Except that molestation is illegal no matter where you do it -- protesting is not.

 

[nvxplorer]

The law is to protect the privacy of the family and friends of the deceased at a very private moment. The law does nothing to restrict anyone's right to free speech. Phelps is free to say whatever he wishes

Using this argument, we should require a 300 ft. buffer zone between residences. Such a law would be to protect the privacy of my home.

Is privacy violated at 299 ft. but not 300 ft.? How do we make such determinations? Can someone claim that privacy is achieved only at a distance of more than 500 ft.?

I'm astounded by some on the right who ridicule privacy rights as they apply to abortion, wiretapping, etc.; even to the point of stating, "Privacy isn't in the Constitution!" Yet, here we have a right-winger who suddenly is concerned about privacy rights.

 

[MachZer0]

Except that molestation is illegal no matter where you do it -- protesting is not.

Assault and battery is also illegal wherever it is committed. According to you, the bubble zone is inappropriate because Phelps, while guilty of assault and battery, is not guilty of assault at battery during a funeral protest. Meantime, bubble zones that restrict the free exercise of speech by nonviolent pro life demonstrators is apprpropriate because "some zealots" have indeed become violent. It appears to the common person that the real difference here is the message. Protest a liberal ideal and suppression of speech is good. Protest a conservative ideal and suppression is bad.

 

[MachZer0]

Using this argument, we should require a 300 ft. buffer zone between residences. Such a law would be to protect the privacy of my home.

Private homes have buffer zones. It's called private property

Is privacy violated at 299 ft. but not 300 ft.? How do we make such determinations? Can someone claim that privacy is achieved only at a distance of more than 500 ft.?

The same question could be asked as it applies to abortion clinics.

I'm astounded by some on the right who ridicule privacy rights as they apply to abortion, wiretapping, etc.; even to the point of stating, "Privacy isn't in the Constitution!" Yet, here we have a right-winger who suddenly is concerned about privacy rights.

The topic here isn't really privacy rights, but the double standard. It's odd that I don't see any left wingers apalled by the inequity of such.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Assault and battery is also illegal wherever it is committed. According to you, the bubble zone is inappropriate because Phelps, while guilty of assault and battery, is not guilty of assault at battery during a funeral protest.

Phelps is irrelevent. Do people at a funeral need more protection than people entering an abortion clinic?History says no.

Meantime, bubble zones that restrict the free exercise of speech by nonviolent pro life demonstrators is apprpropriate because "some zealots" have indeed become violent.

The Bubble zones around abortion clincs restrict nothing. They merely insure that the proper exercise of first amendment rights do not interfere with the right to receive medical treatment -- a right whcih many protesters, accidentally or deliberately, end up infringing on if not for the buffer zones.

It appears to the common person that the real difference here is the message. Protest a liberal ideal and suppression of speech is good. Protest a conservative ideal and suppression is bad.

Keep thinking that, mach, but the courts won't be fooled.

 

[MachZer0]

Phelps is irrelevent. Do people at a funeral need more protection than people entering an abortion clinic?History says no.

Phelps is irrelevant because he's preaching an antiwar, anti Bush message. Thus, to many on the left, he deserves the right to interfere in the private lives of others.

The Bubble zones around abortion clincs restrict nothing. They merely insure that the proper exercise of first amendment rights do not interfere with the right to receive medical treatment -- a right whcih many protesters, accidentally or deliberately, end up infringing on if not for the buffer zones.

Again, the real villain here is the message. Anti-war-good. Anti-Bush, good. Free spech prevails. Pro-life, bad. Restriction of speech is the proper response. Oh yes, and don't call it restriction, that way it can be called Constitutional.

Keep thinking that, mach, but the courts won't be fooled.

We'll see. The makeup of the Roberts court may disagree with the ACLU and others on the left who support the message Phelps gives.

 

[nvxplorer]

It appears to the common person that the real difference here is the message.

No. It appears to everyone reading this thread that you are the only one who doesn't get it. How you extrapolate "common person" from "you" is beyond me.

 

[MachZer0]

No. It appears to everyone reading this thread that you are the only one who doesn't get it. How you extrapolate "common person" from "you" is beyond me.

I'm not sure to what you refer as an extrapolation, but the commpn person, the independent observer would clearly see that this issue hinges on the message, not the 1st Amendment. The ACLU here promotes freedom for one goup of speakers and restrictions on another. The discrepancy is justified based on trumped up charges of violence. Remember, there are already laws that address violence, so the restriction of speech thrust upon the nonviolent speakers is unnecessary. However, that same restriction helps promote a pet issue for the ACLU. There it is in a nutshell

 

[nvxplorer]

I'm not sure to what you refer as an extrapolation

Extrapolate: To infer from what is known.

but the commpn person, the independent observer would clearly see that this issue hinges on the message, not the 1st Amendment.

There you go again.

The discrepancy is justified based on trumped up charges of violence.

Trumped up? LOL.

Remember, there are already laws that address violence, so the restriction of speech thrust upon the nonviolent speakers is unnecessary.

There are already laws against driving recklessly, so criminalizing drunk driving unnecessarily punishes those who drink and drive, but do not otherwise break traffic laws.

 

[tulc]

sooo free speech is only for the people we agree with? You know the ACLU always loses members over cases like this, and yet they still take them. Why? Because the right to free speech is more importent then the speech it self. Does the ACLU support Phelps? No. does the ACLU support Phelps' right to say what he wants? Yes. As an aside didn't the ACLU (or one branch at least) defend those who protest outside of abortion clinics? So I guess "THE ACLU SUPPORTS PRO-LIFE SPEECH!" should be the next thread we start?

tulc(pouring some coffee!)

 

[k]

sooo free speech is only for the people we agree with? You know the ACLU always loses members over cases like this, and yet they still take them. Why? Because the right to free speech is more importent then the speech it self. Does the ACLU support Phelps? No. does the ACLU support Phelps' right to say what he wants? Yes. As an aside didn't the ACLU (or one branch at least) defend those who protest outside of abortion clinics? So I guess "THE ACLU SUPPORTS PRO-LIFE SPEECH!" should be the next thread we start?

A while ago I got into trouble for pointing out Walmart is mainly supported by the Right but this OP can stand?The reason why many on the Right view the ACLU as the Left is because the ACLU is focused on equal Rights for all people. Since the Right is in power it inherently operates on an oppressive level so the ACLU appears to be fighting the Right. However, if the Left were in power, it would appear the ACLU was against the Left.They are against all oppression.

 

[MachZer0]

LOL.There are already laws against driving recklessly, so criminalizing drunk driving unnecessarily punishes those who drink and drive, but do not otherwise break traffic laws.

Bad comparison. Driving is a privilege, not a right. However, since you brought it up, a better comparison would be if laws restricted the driving privileges of all people because a few drive drunk. Better to treat all protesters equally and not as the ACLU is doing with Phelps as compare to pro-life groups

 

[MachZer0]

sooo free speech is only for the people we agree with?

Sad, but true

 

[tulc]

Better to treat all protesters equally and not as the ACLU is doing with Phelps as compare to pro-life groups

uhmmm wasn't the law put in place to keep Phelps from protesting? So wan't Phelps being fitted with a state sanctioned muzzle? And that's what the ACLU was coming against?
tulc(first it's the Phelps', then it's someone else obnoxious, soon it's anyone not supporting the party line!)