The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[ElvisFan42]

The context of the charge leveled against me was this thread.

So you won't say how you feel about Phelps?

Have a nice day.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

this simply establishes the fact that the ACLU is NOT a liberal organization. they defend the civil rights of whoever they can when they are being infringed upon. Furthermore, they will take cases testing laws that have the possibility of future infringement.
that seems to be the more likely case here- Phelps will not be allowed to protest at military funerals after the case, but the law will be scrutinized and improved to ensure that the least possibility for abuse of a good law comes into play.
Defending someone's rights does not indicate support of that person or group.
Accusing the ACLU of any sort of support or immoral action here is akin to accusing a defense attorney of being immoral for defending someone who is widely believed to be guilty. phelps has a right to adress his grievances with the government, and he has the right to counsel. the aclu's mission is to stand in between the government and the people when civil rights are at stake, so they took the case here. everyone gets their day in court...

 

[xMinionX]

It's a short thread, and I've made few posts, so that's no excuse

You're really being unnecessarily difficult here. You could simply state your opinion, short and sweet. No need for an essay. You've probably typed more saying "Nah nah, not gonna tell ya, find it for yourself" than if you'd just said it.

That, of course, excludes valedictorians giving speeches that honor God. In that situation, the ACLU would choose to limit speech, which does indeed reveal an agenda for those who claim the ACLU has no political agenda

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5148027

Gary Peck with the ACLU of Nevada says that's where McComb crossed the line.

"School sponsored valedictorian speeches ought not to be used for prosthelizing. It's improper. It's not about discrimination, it's about separation of church and state and not putting a government stamp on sponsoring religion," Peck said.

Gary Peck says the ACLU often defends religious freedom cases, but using a school-sponsored event to push your religion on others is wrong.

Totally different situations. Phelps free speech rights are different from McComb using school property, time, and resources to prosletyze to a captive audience. The Phelps issue has nothing to do with separation of church and state. The McComb situation does. That's where they differ.

When Phelps becomes governor and starts thumping his Bible at non-believers, then I'll call for his head. Until then, he can froth at the mouth all he wants.

 

[praying]

And black people can use the 'N' word all they want, but if a white person dares to use it, the PC police come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Correction the black people will come down on then like a down of bricks!

 

[bammertheblue]

The ACLU defends Christians all the time. I posted a long list and a link earlier in the thread, if you'd like to see for yourself.

 

[MachZer0]

You're really being unnecessarily difficult here. You could simply state your opinion, short and sweet. No need for an essay. You've probably typed more saying "Nah nah, not gonna tell ya, find it for yourself" than if you'd just said it..

I'm not being difficult at all since the topic is not my opinion of Phelps but rather of the ACLU

 

[blueapplepaste]

And they claimed censorship, which was a total crock of something unprintable.

Don't remember that, but if that's what they did then shame on them. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if it was another instance of the right taking something said out of context; as they so often love to do).

Just one?

http://www.b.150m.com/writers/hentoff/burningideas.html
http://soc.enotes.com/free-speech-article
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6293.html
http://www.geocities.com/nstix/The_Horowitz_Maneuver_Pt.html

Let me remind you of what you said:

School newspapers that support conservative policies or candidates get stolen and burned, without punishment.

While those actions of stealing and burning newspapers are in poor taste and are indeed criminal; not one of those articles mentions the someone being convicted and not punished. I have no doubt that had someone or some group been convicted in a court of the said crimes they would have been punished. So your notion that those crimes went unpunished is unsubstantiated (unsolved, but not unpunished). Nice try, but no cigar.

They pick and choose the 'freedom of speech' cases they'll fight for. They rarely defend Christians, they twist the freedom of religion part of the First Amendment into unrecognizable shapes. I don't hate the ACLU; I merely see no point to their continued existence.

They pick cases in which the Constitution has been violated. There is no agenda. How you folks from the right fail to see this is beyond me. ACLU paranoia seems to be higher than ever. And I for one do see a point to their continued existence; to continue to defend the Constitution; including Christians' rights as well as all others.

 

[blueapplepaste]

They aren't insurgents. An insurgency is almost totally an internal affair. Most of the members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq aren't even Iraqis; they're from Jordan, Syria and Iran. Not all, but a lot. If it walks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist and talks like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, not an insurgent.

False. Couldn't let this one go: Only 4-10% of the Iraq insurgency are foreign.

So I guess by your definiation they are mostly insurgents.

 

[TScott]

ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials



I suppose this is an example of how much the Left hates George Bush and the war. So much so that they support Fred Phelps

No, it's actually an example of how little you understand about liberty. We may hate what Phelps has to say, but we will defend his right to say it.

I know, I know. It's all very complicated, isn't it?

 

[seebs]

I still don't see how the ACLU are "the left" any more than they are "the right". They're civil libertarians, thus liberal on some things, but there are many civil liberties issues where this puts them in direct opposition to, say, the Democrats.

I think it's a serious error to mistake legal defense of someone's rights for support of that person's actions.

As someone who's generally been more Republican than Democrat, by a large margin, for my entire life, lemme just say:

Despite appearances, the ability to conceive of defending the rights of distasteful people is not monopolized by leftists. There are people left who are probably "right wing" by many measures, but who do recall when we were opposed to "politically correct" speech on the grounds that it infringed on liberties, not just because we didn't like being nice to minorities.

 

[nvxplorer]

I think 'homocide bomber' is a more accurate term...

Redundancy is not your friend.

 

[george78]

Of Course the ACLU and the Left Support Fred Phelps. After all, he is nothing more than an agent provocateur.

Here you have a guy who is a lifelong Democrat. He's run for office as a Democrat several times. (State Representative, US Senator, Governor) each time he ran for office, he bragged about how liberal he was.

He supports Communist Dictators. He Supported Saddam Hussein. He renounced his allegiance to the United States, and swore an oath of Allegience to Iraq.

He has tried to have 10 Commandment monuments removed from public.

He HATES George W. Bush, going so far as to say that Bush worships the peanut guy (Mr. Peanut).

Even folks on the LEFT are starting to realize that Phelps is an agent provocateur. Salon mentioned this on a few occasions. Law Professors that support redefining marriage have said the same thing.

Folks have pointed out that Phelps is getting big money from somewhere, (Some have even suggested NAMBLA ties), and his entire purpose seems to be to show up and act as insane as possible, to drum up sympathy for the very people he pretends to protest.

It's a really elaborate stunt that phelps and company have pulled off, but slowly, folks on both the left and right, are seeing through his charade.

 

[george78]

As I noted before, it's rather telling that the ACLU is supporting Phelps "right to protest" but they openly opposed the rights of pro-lifer's who wanted to protest Abortion Mills.

http://forerunner.com/fyi/news/wsj021099.htm

 

[Brimshack]

ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials



I suppose this is an example of how much the Left hates George Bush and the war. So much so that they support Fred Phelps

Nah, just another example of the ACLU pursuing an agenda that its most vocal critics refuse to address. Some disagree with the actual stance of the ACLU; others prefer to simply slander its membership.

 

[notto]

.

 

[xMinionX]

Ok, since only the unsubstantial part of my post was responded to, here it is again.

That, of course, excludes valedictorians giving speeches that honor God. In that situation, the ACLU would choose to limit speech, which does indeed reveal an agenda for those who claim the ACLU has no political agenda

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5148027

Gary Peck with the ACLU of Nevada says that's where McComb crossed the line.

"School sponsored valedictorian speeches ought not to be used for prosthelizing. It's improper. It's not about discrimination, it's about separation of church and state and not putting a government stamp on sponsoring religion," Peck said.

Gary Peck says the ACLU often defends religious freedom cases, but using a school-sponsored event to push your religion on others is wrong.

Totally different situations. Phelps free speech rights are different from McComb using school property, time, and resources to prosletyze to a captive audience. The Phelps issue has nothing to do with separation of church and state. The McComb situation does. That's where they differ.

When Phelps becomes governor and starts thumping his Bible at non-believers, then I'll call for his head. Until then, he can froth at the mouth all he wants.

 

[TeddyKGB]

As I noted before, it's rather telling that the ACLU is supporting Phelps "right to protest" but they openly opposed the rights of pro-lifer's who wanted to protest Abortion Mills.

http://forerunner.com/fyi/news/wsj021099.htm

So that's the synopsis you're going with, is it? "Openly opposed the rights..." rather than, say, "filed a neutral brief regarding the content of threatening speech"?

You might have more rhetorical success around here if you come to realize that many of us read the links you post, and that you should, I don't know, be honest and up-front about what they say.

 

[MachZer0]

Ok, since only the unsubstantial part of my post was responded to, here it is again.




http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5148027



Totally different situations. Phelps free speech rights are different from McComb using school property, time, and resources to prosletyze to a captive audience. The Phelps issue has nothing to do with separation of church and state. The McComb situation does. That's where they differ.

When Phelps becomes governor and starts thumping his Bible at non-believers, then I'll call for his head. Until then, he can froth at the mouth all he wants.

When someone doesn't like the content of another's speech, an excuse to supprees that speech can always be found.

 

[seebs]

Let's look at the details of the ACLU's involvement in the abortion protest.

None of the anti-abortion group's intimidating writings explicitly threatened violence. Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants' First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief taking no one's side but arguing that speech constitutes a physical threat only when the speaker intends his statement to be taken as one.

The judge rejected the ACLU's standard, instructing the jury instead to find a threat whenever "a reasonable person" could foresee that the words could be taken as threatening. This is a much looser definition of a threat, in which the listener's potential reaction controls the speaker, forcing the speaker to guess at how his words will be construed. He risks bankruptcy if wrong. A verdict based on this faulty standard should be challenged, not cheered.​

So.

The ACLU filed a brief, not "picking sides" on the issue, but unambiguously supporting a standard that, if it had been adopted, would have protected the free speech of the anti-abortion protestors.

The judgment against them was contrary to what the ACLU filed.

Let's look at a real source, not an op-ed piece written by someone who has an agenda. (As we all know, people with agendas are often dishonest.)

Course notes from Stanford

On September 22, 1998, the American Civil Liberties Union defined what should legally constitute a threat in a “friend of the court” brief for this trial. See our legal analysis of the case for more information about the definition of an illegal threat. However, the ACLU plans to join in an appeal, claiming that the verdict impinges on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The ACLU believes the standards to limit speech entail more than a mere threat, but must show clear evidence that there exists intent to carry out the threat.​

So.

We have people with a web site that, if you take the text at face value, offers cash bounties for specific people, along with lists of people with black lines drawn through the ones already killed.

Against this backdrop, we find that the ACLU filed a brief which, had the court acted according to it, would have protected that as free speech, and that the ACLU announced plans to join the case on appeal.

9th Circuit Court Ruling

We can't get any substantial data from this; the eventual ruling was for the defendants (the ACLA). An ACLU lawyer is claimed to have argued for affirmance, but there are no public records of what if anything he said, or on what grounds.

Still, the ACLU did specifically advocate a standard under which the ACLA would have been cleared, and in the end, that's what happened.

Nonetheless, I think it quite easy to imagine rational people holding to a standard where publically lauding murders, including posting a murderer's explanation of how good he felt about killing people, is not seen as quite as worthy of protection as, say, merely saying stupid things at a funeral. Phelps, for all that he's a right prat, consistently stays well short of killing people, or even advocating killing them. The ACLA was riding that line hard, given that it took two courts in a row to figure it out.

(As a practical matter, their behavior almost certainly did eventually lead to deaths; the rate at which groups like that kill doctors who have provided abortions, even if they have other areas of practice, is sickening.)

 

[seebs]

When someone doesn't like the content of another's speech, an excuse to supprees that speech can always be found.

Agreed.

This is why organizations like the ACLU are so very useful; people who will at least make an effort to defend essentially any speech, however disgusting, help keep us from getting in the habit of shutting people up.

I sometimes wish they'd do more work, and represent more people... But their inability to do so probably has something to do with the huge and organized smear campaigns run against them.

Just something to think about.