The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[Scribbler]

Just getting started in this thread. I don't believe the ACLU represents 'the left'. Sure, their cases seem to be geared much more toward the left end of the compass than the right, but I wouldn't call them the left.
As far as Phelps goes, Doesn't protesting a funeral constitute 'disturbing the peace'?, and negate their right to disrupt it?

 

[MachZer0]

uhmmm wasn't the law put in place to keep Phelps from protesting?

no

So wan't Phelps being fitted with a state sanctioned muzzle?

no again

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!)

You mean the ACLU party line. I agree with that. The ACLU definitely has a political agenda and uses the system to push it

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.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.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.

Paranoid much?

 

[Nathan Poe]

As far as Phelps goes, Doesn't protesting a funeral constitute 'disturbing the peace'?, and negate their right to disrupt it?

Not really; how do you figure that?

The simple fact remains that there has never been a case on the books of a funeral protest erupting in violent or illegal action, so there's really no legal reason to restrict the protests yet.

If these protests start turning ugly, then bubble zones will be justified.

 

[MachZer0]

Paranoid much?

I'm not sure what paranoia has to do with it. This thread is based on observation.

 

[MachZer0]

Not really; how do you figure that?

The simple fact remains that there has never been a case on the books of a funeral protest erupting in violent or illegal action, so there's really no legal reason to restrict the protests yet.

If these protests start turning ugly, then bubble zones will be justified.

Disturbing the peace does not have to be an act of violence. Can you prove your assertion that there has never been an act of violence or an illegal during a funeral protest?

 

[tulc]

so the laws weren't put in place to stop Phelps even though his group seems to be the only ones doing it?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-24-funeral-protests_x.htm

tulc(who else does it?)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Disturbing the peace does not have to be an act of violence.

Protests are not in and of themselves "disturbing the peace" unless they turn ugly. That darn First Amendment!

Can you prove your assertion that there has never been an act of violence or an illegal during a funeral protest?

That's easy. If there were, then either you, or the writers of the law, would be able to cite at least one such case. You cannot. Q.E.D.

 

[MachZer0]

Protests are not in and of themselves "disturbing the peace" unless they turn ugly. That darn First Amendment!

The protests are ugly. So by the definition just given, they do indeed disturb the peace

That's easy. If there were, then either you, or the writers of the law, would be able to cite at least one such case. You cannot. Q.E.D.

That's a clever way of attempting to let someone off the hook for making a claim that can't be substantiated.

 

[MachZer0]

so the laws weren't put in place to stop Phelps even though his group seems to be the only ones doing it?

tulc(who else does it?)

I don't think anyone has claimed that the laws were not put in place to stop Phelps. However, the laws are not limited just to stopping him

 

[Nathan Poe]

The protests are ugly. So by the definition just given, they do indeed disturb the peace

What definition? Every protest is ugly to someone -- particularly the people being protested.

That's a clever way of attempting to let someone off the hook for making a claim that can't be substantiated.

So, there are no such cases, and the law has no justification. Thank you for clearing that up for us.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't think anyone has claimed that the laws were not put in place to stop Phelps.

But that was the sole intention of the law.

However, the laws are not limited just to stopping him

But that is the only effect it will have.

 

[MachZer0]

What definition? Every protest is ugly to someone -- particularly the people being protested.

The definition was given that a protest disturbs the peace if it turns ugly. That's an issue you should take up witht he person giving the definition

So, there are no such cases, and the law has no justification. Thank you for clearing that up for us.

As I recall, you were challenged to prove an assertion, and no proof has been offered. that speaks for itself

 

[MachZer0]

But that was the sole intention of the law.

Evidence? I won't hold my breath

But that is the only effect it will have.

Untrue. It will apply equally to all potential protesters

 

[Nathan Poe]

The definition was given that a protest disturbs the peace if it turns ugly. That's an issue you should take up witht he person giving the definition

Fine then. Define "turning ugly" in this context.

As I recall, you were challenged to prove an assertion, and no proof has been offered. that speaks for itself

Would you like me to gather up every single criminal record in American history, and go through them one by one to show that none of them are related to funeral protests? Or is there some other way to prove a negative?

Stop grasping at straws, Mach, there has never been a violent or illegal incident at a funeral protest. You're fighting that fact because you know it's true.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Evidence? I won't hold my breath


Untrue. It will apply equally to all potential protesters

Who else is there?

 

[MachZer0]

Fine then. Define "turning ugly" in this context.

Turning ugly, unfortunately for the one who introduced it as a criterion, is vague and can include verbal insults such as is common to the protests by Phelps

Would you like me to gather up every single criminal record in American history, and go through them one by one to show that none of them are related to funeral protests? Or is there some other way to prove a negative?

You would need to do more than that since your claim dealy with "all violence", not just that which resulted in criminal charges

Stop grasping at straws, Mach, there has never been a violent or illegal incident at a funeral protest. You're fighting that fact because you know it's true.

If there has been violence at a funeral protest, would the Missouri law then be justified?

 

[MachZer0]

Who else is there?

It could be anyone. The law doesn't limit the ban to any particular group as far as I know.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Turning ugly, unfortunately for the one who introduced it as a criterion, is vague and can include verbal insults such as is common to the protests by Phelps

Well, somehow I doubt that the police or the courts are quite that vague about it -- or that thin-skinned. Protests are heated events, and emotions run high. But that's the price we pay for having a First Amendment.

You would need to do more than that since your claim dealy with "all violence", not just that which resulted in criminal charges

Fortunately, I fired up the Crystal Ball and checked just that -- and it came up empty. No violence at funeral protests, let alone anything that would justify new legislation.

If there has been violence at a funeral protest, would the Missouri law then be justified?

You tell me -- would a single isolated incident be enough to justify a law which restricts civil liberties, or would it take more to show conclusively that maintaining public safety is worth the restriction?

 

[Nathan Poe]

It could be anyone. The law doesn't limit the ban to any particular group as far as I know.

but currently, who else is there?