The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[nvxplorer]

They are not banning speech just the proximity in which it can be said. Why are funerals not considered important to the family and friends there. You can't go into a store and protest or block streets. The fact is people want this because it makes Christians look bad. Plain and simple. That or they don't care about vet's funerals.

Which people want what? And how does it make Christians look bad?

 

[kermit]

That's why the Left, the ACLU, has come out in support of Phelps.

nothing but hyperbole

 

[MachZer0]

Which people want what?

The ACLU, and many of those who support them

And how does it make Christians look bad?

It's not uncommon for people right here on CF to use Phelps and his activities to portry Christians in a bad light

 

[nvxplorer]

The ACLU, and many of those who support them

It's not uncommon for people right here on CF to use Phelps and his activities to portry Christians in a bad light

Nuh-uh!

 

[pantsman52]

That's why the Left, the ACLU, has come out in support of Phelps.

Come out in support of free speech. Havn't you ever heard the Voltaire quote "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

 

[Brimshack]

They are not banning speech just the proximity in which it can be said.

I have already answered this argument. A law banning speech here but not there is still a law banning speech.

Why are funerals not considered important to the family and friends there. You can't go into a store and protest or block streets.

Funerals are considered important, and you have no reason to believe anyone has disagreed with that importance. The question is whether or not this specific law - as worded - is consistent with the First Amendment. If not, then it should go.

The fact is people want this because it makes Christians look bad. Plain and simple. That or they don't care about vet's funerals.

You have no grounds for this assertion. Your disagreement with the ACLU does not entitle you to make groundless accusations aginst it or anyone else on the other side. What you are doing (and what Mach0 is doing in the post below you ) is LYING. You are both completely ignoring the arguments made by the opposition while attributing motives to that opposition on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Making stuff up about people, even those you disagree with is lying. I know this is politics, but that is no excuse. You should either stick to the issue or drop it altogether.

 

[Nathan Poe]

They are not banning speech just the proximity in which it can be said.

Still censorship, pure and simple.

Why are funerals not considered important to the family and friends there. You can't go into a store and protest or block streets.

People have the right to peacably assemble and protest whatever they wish. Deal with it.

The fact is people want this because it makes Christians look bad. Plain and simple. That or they don't care about vet's funerals.

Irrelevent. Peacable protests on public property are protected (yay for alliteration!)

The message may be morally repugnant, and something that we may passionately counter-protest, but in the end, isn't that just the kind of speech that needs the First Amendment most of all?

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's not uncommon for people right here on CF to use Phelps and his activities to portry Christians in a bad light

The first irony is that those same people are defending Phelps' Constitutional right to make an idiot of himself in the name of God.

The second irony is that Phelps is accepting help from the "leftist" ACLU, and he hates them far worse than you do.

 

[Brimshack]

There is actually a reasonable argument to be made against the ACLU here. The case will turn on whether or not the law is neutral with respect to the content of speech. If one really has an opinion about the csae itself, it shouldn't be hard to just argue that position. That isn't what is happening in this thread, but the argument could certainly be made.

 

[MachZer0]

Come out in support of free speech. Havn't you ever heard the Voltaire quote "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

Actually, we've already discussed that. Do you agree with Voltaire?

 

[burrow_owl]

If you don't agree with Voltaire, I humbly suggest you go back to Russia, comrade.

 

[MachZer0]

If you don't agree with Voltaire,

Do you agree with Voltaire? Are you willing to defend, to the death, a young lady's right to say what she wants as valedictorian at her graduation? Or do you put limits on what speech you will defend to the death?

I humbly suggest you go back to Russia, comrade.

By the way. I've never been to Russia so no matter how much people don't like my viewpoint, I can't go back there.

 

[nvxplorer]

Are you willing to defend, to the death, a young lady's right to say what she wants as valedictorian at her graduation?

The First Amendment doesn't address graduation speeches.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you agree with Voltaire? Are you willing to defend, to the death, a young lady's right to say what she wants as valedictorian at her graduation?

What about the School's rights and responsibilities?

 

[burrow_owl]

[deleted. There's really no non-snarky reason for what I wrote.]

 

[notto]

Are you willing to defend, to the death, a young lady's right to say what she wants as valedictorian at her graduation?

Valedictorians don't have a right to say what they want at graduation. It is not a protected venue of personal free speech so there is no right to defend. You are making up rights that don't exist in an ill conceived attempt at drawing an analogy that doesn't work by definition.

Speaking at a graduation is a privilage that has strings attached to it.

 

[livingword26]

The First Amendment doesn't address graduation speeches.

Do you have the list for where a persons free speach is allowed and where it is not? Denying a person to mention God in a speach anywhere speaches are permited is such a blatent denial of first amendment rights it is unbelievable that it is even mentioned.

 

[nvxplorer]

[deleted. There's really no non-snarky reason for what I wrote.]

Yet, I understand fully your snarkiness.

 

[livingword26]

Speaking at a graduation is a privilage that has strings attached to it.

Who has the right to attach strings at a graduation cemamony, why and what kind of strings.

 

[nvxplorer]

Do you have the list for where a persons free speach is allowed and where it is not? Denying a person to mention God in a speach anywhere speaches are permited is such a blatent denial of first amendment rights it is unbelievable that it is even mentioned.

My comment was sarcasm. You'd need to follow the entire thread (a portion of it, anyway) to see the sarcasm.

Speech is not allowed everywhere by anybody. This has been explained repeatedly in the thread.