The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[Rae]

For anyone opposed to my position, I could present God Herself and they'd deny that God was right. I'm not in the mood to be denigrated and ignored and outright insulted right now. I do find it incredibly funny that most Christian churches don't display the 10, but they expect government offices to do it for them. If that isn't lazy Christianity, I don't know what is...

 

[MachZer0]

When and where? Students could say whatever they wanted? Profanity, sexual inuendo, kill the teachers? Your statement is not supported by history or evidence. What you are claiming is 'free speech' is governmetn allowed speech plain and simple. Schools have always had the privilage of censoring the speech of students at their graduation ceremonies, just like the enforcement of dress codes to attend.

Obviously this was before your time when profanity was not considered free speech and references to God in graduation ceremonies were

You seem to be confusing governement providing a privilage of speech that they sponsor (graduation events) and condone and them taking away the right of free speech that they don't agree with from citizens.

I don't think I'm the one who is confused

A student speech at a school sponsored graduation is government speech no matter who is doing the speaking. It never was a venue of free speech and there are rules that speakers adhere to when they agree and they are selected and condoned by the government actors.

Again, this was obviously before your time. Mention of God at school events, prayer at graduations and sports events are part of our history. If they aren't, why was it necessary to ban them?

 

[notto]

Obviously this was before your time when profanity was not considered free speech and references to God in graduation ceremonies were

Right. The content of the speech has always been censored by the schools for content. Thanks for confirming my point.

I don't think I'm the one who is confused

But you keep demonstrating that you are.

Again, this was obviously before your time. Mention of God at school events, prayer at graduations and sports events are part of our history. If they aren't, why was it necessary to ban them?

You again miss the point. Just because they were allowed does not mean that they were protected. The privilage has changed, not the rights. It was a privilage that government allowed. That action of condoning the privilage of government sponsored religious speech is what is being challanged in the courts. The government granted the microphone to selected individuals. That is not the demonstration of someone exercising a right, it is a demonstration of someone acting with privilage.

There is a difference whether you refuse to accept it or not. Again, I would recommend reading some court cases where this difference is spelled out.

 

[MachZer0]

Right. The content of the speech has always been censored by the schools for content. Thanks for confirming my point.

I didn't say profanity was not considered free speech in schools. I said it was not considered free speech period. As a matter of fact, cities still have laws agains using profannity in public.

You again miss the point. Just because they were allowed does not mean that they were protected.

And yet they were at one time

The privilage has changed, not the rights.

And it changed for Phelps in Missouri as his protests at funerals are illegal in that state.

 

[MachZer0]

I find it ironic that those on the left can support abortion based on a perceived right to privacy, thus allowing a woman to kill her unborn child. Yet, they cannot seem to perceive that same right to privacy for a woman to bury her dead son who sacrificed his life for his country.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And it changed for Phelps in Missouri as his protests at funerals are illegal in that state.

Except that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that a state cannot deny a citizen rights guaranteed to it by federal law -- hence, the lawsuit.

 

[MachZer0]

Except that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that a state cannot deny a citizen rights guaranteed to it by federal law -- hence, the lawsuit.

Except for those buffer zones around abortion clinics, right?

 

[notto]

I find it ironic that those on the left can support abortion based on a perceived right to privacy, thus allowing a woman to kill her unborn child. Yet, they cannot seem to perceive that same right to privacy for a woman to bury her dead son who sacrificed his life for his country.

Nice appeal to emotion (with a another red herring to boot!). The sure sign of a desperate argument.

 

[notto]

Except for those buffer zones around abortion clinics, right?

You are familiar with the ACLU position on abortion clinic protests and buffer zones, right? They are using the exact same argument in this case. A public sidewalk is a public sidewalk and it is a free speech venue that is open to all citizens to use, even if it is for a protest. As long as it is not disruptive and the speech isn't censored because of it's content, the position of the ACLU is that it is protected free speech.

You will find that the ACLU is very consistent in it's application of freedom to assembly and supports abortion protesters right to do just that.

This 'leftist' organization supports Christian and anti-abortion protesters right to protest on public property even if they don't agree with the message as long as the protest is not harrassing or threatening or blocking access to those attending what they are protesting. Sound familiar?

 

[blueapplepaste]

I find it ironic that those on the left can support abortion based on a perceived right to privacy, thus allowing a woman to kill her unborn child. Yet, they cannot seem to perceive that same right to privacy for a woman to bury her dead son who sacrificed his life for his country.

There is nothing ironic about it. An abortion involves a woman's body in the privacy of her doctor's office. You nor I have anyright to say what she can and can't do. A funeral is public domain. The two are not comparable; now it's obvious you're just fishing for talking points.

I hate what Phelps does just as much as you do. The solution isn't blocking free speech though. The legislatures should designate funerals to be private gatherings and withing 300 feet of a funeral is temporarily private domain or something. So long as funerals are public events there is nothing that can legally be done.

 

[notto]

I didn't say profanity was not considered free speech in schools. I said it was not considered free speech period. As a matter of fact, cities still have laws agains using profannity in public.

So, you position is that at one time graduation speeches could consist of whatever the student wanted as long as it didn't include words considered profanity?

And it changed for Phelps in Missouri as his protests at funerals are illegal in that state.

And the constitutionality of that law is what is being challenged. Just like abortion protesters would (and have) done when their right to free speech is infriged upon by the threatened encroachment of unconstitutional laws.

 

[blueapplepaste]

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

I think the bigger question is why you and others on here don't support free speech?!? Don't you like free speech MachZero? As much as I see you and others profess their undying love for America; it seems to me that you would be right on board with the ACLU and defend free speech.

So why is it that the right apparantly has come out in support for censorship? Sounds more like communist China that a free America to me!

 

[MachZer0]

There is nothing ironic about it. An abortion involves a woman's body in the privacy of her doctor's office. You nor I have anyright to say what she can and can't do.

The protests arenot attacks on her body and are conducted in the public areas.

A funeral is public domain. The two are not comparable

.There's the irony. In both cases, a woman's child has died. One deserves privacy, and one doesn't

I hate what Phelps does just as much as you do. The solution isn't blocking free speech though. The legislatures should designate funerals to be private gatherings and withing 300 feet of a funeral is temporarily private domain or something. So long as funerals are public events there is nothing that can legally be done.

That is basically what the Missouri law does, yet the ACLU is still fighting to give Phelps the right to disrupt these very personal ceremonies.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Except for those buffer zones around abortion clinics, right?

You mean the ones that prevent the protesters from blocking the doors?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nice appeal to emotion (with a another red herring to boot!). The sure sign of a desperate argument.

You expected anything better? The law and reason are both against him; where else do they go when they're running on empty?

 

[notto]

yet the ACLU is still fighting to give Phelps the right to disrupt these very personal ceremonies.

I must have missed where you pointed out that the ACLU was fighting to overturn existing laws about disturbing the peace.

The ACLU is certainly not fighting to give Phelps the right to disrupt funerals. To state that they are is to misrepresent the argument. Not a good way to conduct debate.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/25433prs20060502.html

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Mercer County resident Bart McQueary, who has protested with members of the Kansas group on three occasions over the last few years. McQueary wishes to peacefully protest with the group in the future.
“Mr. McQueary clearly has the right to express his message in a non-disruptive manner, even if others disagree with him,” said Lutgens. “That’s what the First Amendment is all about.”

The new laws ban peaceful protests within 300 feet of a funeral, and would restrict McQueary and others from making sounds, displaying signs or distributing literature in a non-disruptive manner without approval from the family of the deceased or from the person conducting the service.

 

[blueapplepaste]

The protests arenot attacks on her body and are conducted in the public areas.

I'm confused; are you referring to abortion protests? You didn't mention anything about abortion protests. You mentioned a woman's right to privacy, nothing about protests.

There's the irony. In both cases, a woman's child has died. One deserves privacy, and one doesn't

You're not making sense (or maybe it's just late and I'm confused? ) I still don't see how abortion is somehow relevent to a funeral protest. They're apples and oranges.

That is basically what the Missouri law does, yet the ACLU is still fighting to give Phelps the right to disrupt these very personal ceremonies.

Do you have a link to the actual wording of the law. I was under the impression that law pretty much no protesting at funerals. Which as far as I knew, those funerals would be/were still considered public domain. If they acted to declare a funeral a private affair then that might be different.

However, something tells me I'm in for a little right wing spin on this one.

 

[MachZer0]

I'm confused; are you referring to abortion protests? You didn't mention anything about abortion protests. You mentioned a woman's right to privacy, nothing about protests.

Youshould go back and read what I said

You're not making sense (or maybe it's just late and I'm confused?

)

I still don't see how abortion is somehow relevent to a funeral protest. They're apples and oranges.

Protesting abortions and protesting funerals are both protests. The ACLU, and many on the left, support Phelps' right to protest uninhibited, but deny that same right to abortion protesters

Do you have a link to the actual wording of the law. I was under the impression that law pretty much no protesting at funerals. Which as far as I knew, those funerals would be/were still considered public domain. If they acted to declare a funeral a private affair then that might be different.

The point is that abortion protesters are restricted from certain public areas. Why does the ACLU not take up that fight for freedom of speech

 

[Nathan Poe]

The point is that abortion protesters are restricted from certain public areas. Why does the ACLU not take up that fight for freedom of speech

Because they already have.

http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/22399lgl19991112.html

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11484prs20040716.html


On the other hand, not even the First Amendment is absolute.

In Pro-Choice Network v. Schenck, the ACLU filed friend-of-the-court briefs in both the court of appeals and the Supreme Court defending the constitutionality of a court order that prohibited the defendants from protesting within 15 feet of clinic driveways and entrances in western New York. We argued that the injunction was necessary to ensure safe and unimpeded access to reproductive health services in the face of extensive evidence that the protesters had repeatedly obstructed, harassed, crowded, intimidated, and grabbed clinic patients and staff. The Supreme Court upheld the order creating protest-free zones.

Now, given that SCOTUS' decision was made during a time when a few (and I do stress the word few) protestors were making their points via threats, guns, and explosive devices, even the ACLU had to agree that the rights of protesters had to be weighed against the safety of clinic staff and patients.

Now, if you don't believe that the rights of people to seek and provide medical treatments are more important than a protester's right to be insufferably obnoxious to the point of harrassment, well, you're going to have to agree to disagree with SCOTUS on that one.

Safety first, free speech second in the case of Reproductive Clinic protests.

Now, can we toss this red herring back, or is this all there is left of your argument?

 

[seebs]

My spouse used to go to clinic protests.

My spouse saw "pro-life" people run up to women going into a clinic and push them over, hard, onto the sidewalk.

Given that some of these women were there for the free prenatal care, not for abortions, that's pretty nasty.

You can say "most protestors don't", and I can agree. Most don't.

But if some do, that's reason enough to establish a physical safety margin against violence.