The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[morningstar2651]

I just read through the text of the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act. It could use some improvement, but for the most part, it's a reasonable law.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm confused. You seemed earlier to be saying you supported the ACLU in this case and therefore supported Phelps in this case as well. Now, you are saying you oppose Phelps. Can you clarify your stance as it regards this particular situation?

I support the ACLU's choice to defend Phelps. I don't support his disruptive actions. The ACLU is doing everything within reason to defend civil liberties, which is what it was formed to do. Phelps will be fairly defended, and likely will be barred from disrupting funerals. The wording of the law is what is most important to me. Sorry that I wasn't clear earlier. I can have some pretty confusing and seemingly contradictory views.

 

[ElvisFan42]

The ACLU equals the left? The ACLU will defend ANYONE's civil liberties, anyone from the right or the left, you should check their history. If they seem to defend people on the left more often, perhaps it's because people on the left have their rights abused more often. And before you ask, I don't support Phelps at all, he is scum and I won't shed a tear when he's gone, this, however, has nothing at all to do with supporting his right to assemble and speak, which I support for everyone. I know those way over on the right would like to bend and twist to stop the free speech of those that disagree with them, but that's just not how it works here.

 

[Sphere]

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

That's how you interpreted it? You should be thanking them. No more can you guys say the ACLU doesn't represent Christians. Im pretty sure that Fred Phelps is a Christian.

 

[Borealis]

To suggest that the "left" supports Phelps is a downright misrepresentation and pretty much a lie. I believe the Bible says something about this. I can't stand Phelps and his tactics as much as the next guy. Phelps is doing anything but the work of God and is a disgusting human being; if he can even be called that. however, his rights are being violated by his "protests" being limited. Once we outlaw his free speech then we start down a slippery slope. Once again the ACLU isn't supporting some radical agenda; unless that radical agenda is the Constitution.

Wait a minute. Phelps is clearly preaching HATE speech, quite literally. His website includes 'hate' in the title. I thought that hate speech was frowned upon by liberals of all stripes (except hatred of Bush and Israel, of course). Now suddenly the party of total tolerance is trying to live up to its billing? Lousy example case for that, I'd say.

So what's the point of the ACLU defending someone that liberals always point out as an example of how the RIGHT is extremist and anti-gay (even though Phelps is a known Democrat contributor and every conservative of note has distanced themselves from him as much as possible)? We know it's not because the left loves Fred Phelps. So there must be another reason behind it, and the stated reason that they're protecting freedom of speech is laughable, considering their track record when it comes to protecting the freedom of speech of actual conservatives.

As the post I quoted points out, it's the PROTESTS that must be protected. Why? Because the left lives for protests. The only thing they are any good at these days is protesting. And if it becomes illegal to protest against military funerals (even if for such an odious reason as Phelpsian hatred), they might find themselves limited in how THEY can protest, too. They might even have to follow RULES, UN forbid. Such a potential threat to their weapon of last resort must be stopped, no matter the cost. And that's why the ACLU is stepping in to defend a piece of human toxic waste like Phelps. Otherwise, there is no way they would even take a sniff at helping their poster-child for right-wing intolerance.

 

[Borealis]

That's how you interpreted it? You should be thanking them. No more can you guys say the ACLU doesn't represent Christians. Im pretty sure that Fred Phelps is a Christian.

In the same way that George Voinovich is a Republican, perhaps.

 

[Sphere]

I think its terrible that the WBC protests are funerals, and I firmly believe they should not be able to do so. The families there have a right to bury their loved ones in peace. I've witnessed a WBC protest in 2002, and it was pretty infuriating.

That being said, what's happening here in no way means the left supports Fred Phelps. If anything, it means the ACLU supports Christians. Isn't their support of Christianity a good thing?

 

[morningstar2651]

In this situation, the ACLU is functionally playing the same role that the devil's advocate plays. They'll attack the law that bans the protests, and may reveal that parts of the law are too general or too specific. The law will probably be improved and Phelps will probably remain barred from disrupting funerals.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Wait a minute. Phelps is clearly preaching HATE speech, quite literally. His website includes 'hate' in the title. I thought that hate speech was frowned upon by liberals of all stripes (except hatred of Bush and Israel, of course). Now suddenly the party of total tolerance is trying to live up to its billing? Lousy example case for that, I'd say.

While I agree what Phelps says is hate speech, many things could be considered that and Phelps contends that he is spreading the word of God, not hating. There are many religious leaders in the US that could be accused of the same thing.

So what's the point of the ACLU defending someone that liberals always point out as an example of how the RIGHT is extremist and anti-gay (even though Phelps is a known Democrat contributor and every conservative of note has distanced themselves from him as much as possible)? We know it's not because the left loves Fred Phelps. So there must be another reason behind it, and the stated reason that they're protecting freedom of speech is laughable, considering their track record when it comes to protecting the freedom of speech of actual conservatives.

Phelps has a right to what is guaranteed by the constitution same as you and I.

As the post I quoted points out, it's the PROTESTS that must be protected. Why? Because the left lives for protests. The only thing they are any good at these days is protesting. And if it becomes illegal to protest against military funerals (even if for such an odious reason as Phelpsian hatred), they might find themselves limited in how THEY can protest, too. They might even have to follow RULES, UN forbid. Such a potential threat to their weapon of last resort must be stopped, no matter the cost. And that's why the ACLU is stepping in to defend a piece of human toxic waste like Phelps. Otherwise, there is no way they would even take a sniff at helping their poster-child for right-wing intolerance.

I don't think the left lives for protests. The number of protesters vs the number of those on the left says protesters are in a minority. While I think protesting any funeral should be outlawed, you do make a good point about being careful so that we are not limited in peaceful protests.

 

[blueapplepaste]

So you support Fred Phelps in this case? Do you consider yourself part of the Left?

I support his right to free speech, but DO NOT support his message. There is a difference.

And I generally am left of center.

 

[praying]

Wait a minute. Phelps is clearly preaching HATE speech, quite literally. His website includes 'hate' in the title. I thought that hate speech was frowned upon by liberals of all stripes (except hatred of Bush and Israel, of course). Now suddenly the party of total tolerance is trying to live up to its billing? Lousy example case for that, I'd say.

So what's the point of the ACLU defending someone that liberals always point out as an example of how the RIGHT is extremist and anti-gay (even though Phelps is a known Democrat contributor and every conservative of note has distanced themselves from him as much as possible)? We know it's not because the left loves Fred Phelps. So there must be another reason behind it, and the stated reason that they're protecting freedom of speech is laughable, considering their track record when it comes to protecting the freedom of speech of actual conservatives.

As the post I quoted points out, it's the PROTESTS that must be protected. Why? Because the left lives for protests. The only thing they are any good at these days is protesting. And if it becomes illegal to protest against military funerals (even if for such an odious reason as Phelpsian hatred), they might find themselves limited in how THEY can protest, too. They might even have to follow RULES, UN forbid. Such a potential threat to their weapon of last resort must be stopped, no matter the cost. And that's why the ACLU is stepping in to defend a piece of human toxic waste like Phelps. Otherwise, there is no way they would even take a sniff at helping their poster-child for right-wing intolerance.

They are not defending him they are defending free speech.

 

[blueapplepaste]

Wait a minute. Phelps is clearly preaching HATE speech, quite literally. His website includes 'hate' in the title. I thought that hate speech was frowned upon by liberals of all stripes (except hatred of Bush and Israel, of course). Now suddenly the party of total tolerance is trying to live up to its billing? Lousy example case for that, I'd say.

Not really sure what you mean here. I would like to think that liberals and conservatives dislike hate speech. However, Phelps has just as much right to spew his message. It is his right that's being defended, not his message.

So what's the point of the ACLU defending someone that liberals always point out as an example of how the RIGHT is extremist and anti-gay (even though Phelps is a known Democrat contributor and every conservative of note has distanced themselves from him as much as possible)? We know it's not because the left loves Fred Phelps. So there must be another reason behind it, and the stated reason that they're protecting freedom of speech is laughable, considering their track record when it comes to protecting the freedom of speech of actual conservatives.

No the reason is not laughable. The ACLU defends free speech for all people. Give one instance where the freedom of speech of a conservative has been hampered? If it was, I'm pretty sure the ACLU was there to defend it. It's sad how the right will ignore all the times the ACLU has defended its causes.

As the post I quoted points out, it's the PROTESTS that must be protected.

That's right the protests, aka his right to free speech.

Why? Because the left lives for protests. The only thing they are any good at these days is protesting. And if it becomes illegal to protest against military funerals (even if for such an odious reason as Phelpsian hatred), they might find themselves limited in how THEY can protest, too. They might even have to follow RULES, UN forbid. Such a potential threat to their weapon of last resort must be stopped, no matter the cost. And that's why the ACLU is stepping in to defend a piece of human toxic waste like Phelps. Otherwise, there is no way they would even take a sniff at helping their poster-child for right-wing intolerance.

You make protesting sound like a bad thing. It's not; your attempt to paint protesting as somehow an evil liberal tactic is nothing more than asome lame talking point from the right.

 

[MewtwoX]

Wait a minute. Phelps is clearly preaching HATE speech, quite literally. His website includes 'hate' in the title. I thought that hate speech was frowned upon by liberals of all stripes (except hatred of Bush and Israel, of course). Now suddenly the party of total tolerance is trying to live up to its billing? Lousy example case for that, I'd say.

Is the ACLU Liberal? I don't recall them making any official affiliations...

So what's the point of the ACLU defending someone that liberals always point out as an example of how the RIGHT is extremist and anti-gay (even though Phelps is a known Democrat contributor and every conservative of note has distanced themselves from him as much as possible)? We know it's not because the left loves Fred Phelps. So there must be another reason behind it, and the stated reason that they're protecting freedom of speech is laughable, considering their track record when it comes to protecting the freedom of speech of actual conservatives.

The answer? The ACLU isn't bound by opinions others have of people, or party lines. They defend people whom they determine have had their civil rights violated.

As for the claim that they don't protect the freedom of speech of Conservatives, well...

Methinks all of the cases you are thinking of are quite debatable on whether civil liberties of Conservatives have been violated.

As the post I quoted points out, it's the PROTESTS that must be protected. Why? Because the left lives for protests. The only thing they are any good at these days is protesting. And if it becomes illegal to protest against military funerals (even if for such an odious reason as Phelpsian hatred), they might find themselves limited in how THEY can protest, too. They might even have to follow RULES, UN forbid. Such a potential threat to their weapon of last resort must be stopped, no matter the cost. And that's why the ACLU is stepping in to defend a piece of human toxic waste like Phelps. Otherwise, there is no way they would even take a sniff at helping their poster-child for right-wing intolerance.

Armchair Psychoanalyzing doesn't fit (nor work) well on either side. Let's not do it, mmkay?

 

[morningstar2651]

Sec. 2413. Prohibition on certain demonstrations at cemeteries under control of the National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery.

Here, we see that this act is only enforcable at important cemetaries. These cemetaries are the final resting place primarily of veterans, U.S. military personnel, and their spouses.

(a) Prohibition.--No person may carry out--

(1) a demonstration on the property of a cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or on the property of Arlington National Cemetery unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or the director of the property on which the cemetery is located; or
​

Here, we find that demonstrations may be carried out with approval.

(2) with respect to such a cemetery, a demonstration during the period beginning 60 minutes before and ending 60 minutes after a funeral, memorial service, or ceremony is held, any part of which demonstration--

(A)(i) takes place within 150 feet of a road, pathway, or other route of ingress to or egress from such cemetery property; and

(ii) includes, as part of such demonstration, any individual willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the funeral, memorial service, or ceremony; or
​

(B) is within 300 feet of such cemetery and impedes the access to or egress from such cemetery.
​

(b) Demonstration.--For purposes of this section, the term`demonstration' includes the following:

(1) Any picketing or similar conduct.

(2) Any oration, speech, use of sound amplification equipment or device, or similar conduct that is not part of a funeral, memorial service, or ceremony.
​

(3) The display of any placard, banner, flag, or similar device, unless such a display is part of a funeral, memorial service, or ceremony.
​

(4) The distribution of any handbill, pamphlet, leaflet, or other written or printed matter other than a program distributed as part of a funeral, memorial service, or ceremony.''.​

​

The law appears to be fairly well worded to me. Your thoughts? Do you forsee any potential unintended problems caused by the wording?

It is the sense of Congress that each State should enact legislation to restrict demonstrations near any military funeral.

 

[nvxplorer]

Uh...no. Emphatically no.

Let me help you out.

The ACLU Comes Out in Support of the First Amendment.

Now that I've fixed your title, I must say: Well, duh!

 

[xMinionX]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

Clear enough?

I doubt anyone in the ACLU is kissing Phelps boots, but I have great respect for them in taking on this case. It's easy to defend the people you agree with. It's harder to defend those you disagree with, and defending someone like Phelps (who, like it or not, has a right to his free speech) must be very very hard.

 

[Anovah]

They are not defending him they are defending free speech.

No kidding.

Another comedic point is that according to Mach's own definition...

but who exactly is the left. Of course we know the ACLu will defend those whose freedom of speech is violated so it isn't them unless defending the consitituion is a "left" thing to do.

I think you got the picture

...he is "the Left" since I've seen him defend the constitution. Pretty much proves the whole left/right tag is an illusion used to pit us against each other.

I would say to Mach, good luck on the bigotry. Let me know how well it works out.

 

[Anovah]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

Clear enough?

I doubt anyone in the ACLU is kissing Phelps boots, but I have great respect for them in taking on this case. It's easy to defend the people you agree with. It's harder to defend those you disagree with, and defending someone like Phelps (who, like it or not, has a right to his free speech) must be very very hard.

 

[nvxplorer]

I doubt anyone in the ACLU is kissing Phelps boots, but I have great respect for them in taking on this case. It's easy to defend the people you agree with. It's harder to defend those you disagree with, and defending someone like Phelps (who, like it or not, has a right to his free speech) must be very very hard.

I'm sure that the ACLU has no difficulty whatsoever in defending Phelp's First Amendment rights. Contrary to many on the right, the ACLU does not promote any ideology (not so for the ACLJ). Its attorneys are perfectly capable of separating any personal opinion from their professional duties.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

I don't doubt part of their interest in this case is because this group gives Christians a bad name.