The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

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.

What is the legal limit for how high emotions can run? And once again, the Missouri law does not restrict speech, but rather location. Funerals are not the first events where bubble zones have been created to do so

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.

Your crystal ball, being limited in scope, is wrong

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?

Dodge? I'm not the one claiming the abortion restrictions on free speech are due to violence

 

[MachZer0]

but currently, who else is there?

Anyone who would protest a funeral. the law applies equally

 

[Nathan Poe]

What is the legal limit for how high emotions can run?

Your right to make a fist stops at the other man's nose. Are you looking to put legal limits on emotions?

Funny, I thought politically correct "thought police" was the sort of thing conservatives liked to accuse liberals of wanting...

And once again, the Missouri law does not restrict speech, but rather location.

If you tell me I can't exercise my First Amendment here, but I can somewhere else, you had better have a compelling reason. Why not just outlaw protests in public altogether, and restict the "location" to our living rooms?

Funerals are not the first events where bubble zones have been created to do so

In other places, there's a reason for them -- in the case of Abortion clinics,the courts agree that public safety and the right of women to receive legal medical treatment is worth protecting, even to the point of putting a restriction on the First Amendment.

What is the compelling reason to put bubble zones around cemetaries? Not public safety, nor public access -- neither of these have ever been in jeopardy as a result of a protest.

Your crystal ball, being limited in scope, is wrong

Prove it.

Dodge? I'm not the one claiming the abortion restrictions on free speech are due to violence

Then are you claiming that anti-abortion protests have never resulted in violence or illegal actions? You're more desperate than I thought.

 

[MachZer0]

Your right to make a fist stops at the other man's nose. Are you looking to put legal limits on emotions?

No, I'm asking you how we determine when the emotions have reached a point where one bubble zone is acceptable and another is not

Funny, I thought politically correct "thought police" was the sort of thing conservatives liked to accuse liberals of wanting...

You're the one who brought up emotions

If you tell me I can't exercise my First Amendment here, but I can somewhere else, you had better have a compelling reason. Why not just outlaw protests in public altogether, and restict the "location" to our living rooms?

So what qualifies as a compelling reason? And why should my rights be restricted as a result of the inappropriate actions of someone else

In other places, there's a reason for them -- in the case of Abortion clinics,the courts agree that public safety and the right of women to receive legal medical treatment is worth protecting, even to the point of putting a restriction on the First Amendment.

Again, why should the rights of peaceful protesters be denied because of the actions of someone else

What is the compelling reason to put bubble zones around cemetaries? Not public safety, nor public access -- neither of these have ever been in jeopardy as a result of a protest.

The privacy of the participants

Prove it.

And will you then agree that the Missouri law is acceptable?

Then are you claiming that anti-abortion protests have never resulted in violence or illegal actions? You're more desperate than I thought.

The abortion clinic restrictions on free speech apply to people who have never committed any act of violence. Thus, it is the message here that makes the diffrence in the ACLU's stance

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, I'm asking you how we determine when the emotions have reached a point where one bubble zone is acceptable and another is not

Violent and/or illegal activity.

You're the one who brought up emotions

And you're the one who wants laws to curtail them. Emotions run high at protests, but that by itself does not merit restricting them.

So what qualifies as a compelling reason? And why should my rights be restricted as a result of the inappropriate actions of someone else

Because there's no way for anyone on the scene to know that you are not that "someone else." It's a tried-and-true M.O. of the more violent protesters to send someone in to gather intel (or plant a device) by posing as a patient. I've never seen anyone try to infiltrate a funeral procession with the intent to do something illegal.

Again, why should the rights of peaceful protesters be denied because of the actions of someone else

see above. The risk is simply too high.

The privacy of the participants

The participants have no legal expectation of privacy on public land.

And will you then agree that the Missouri law is acceptable?

If it's no more excessive than Abortion clinic bubble zones. The legislature would have to show that the law serves an interest which justifies a reasonable restriction of First Amendment rights.

You have failed to prove (and most likely will continue to fail to prove) that funeral protests have ever had any kind of violent or illegal action associated with them.

The abortion clinic restrictions on free speech apply to people who have never committed any act of violence.

I've never committed an act of bank robbery -- but they still won't let me walk into the vault.

Thus, it is the message here that makes the diffrence in the ACLU's stance

The Abortion clinic restrictions apply to a situation which has a long documented history of breaking out into violent and/or illegal activities (often by people with no previous record of violence.) Still waiting for any incident of a funeral protest turning violent -- from Phelps or anyone else.

You are comparing one set of circumstances with a known track record of violence, inculding murder and arson, with another that has no recorded instances of any illegal activites. Funeral protests simply do not attract the same level of zealots as abortion protests.

Are you STILL suggesting that abortion protests never turn violent? Or do you just hate the ACLU that much that facts don't matter?

 

[JoyJuice]

Wow is thread for real?

The left specifically supports Fred Phelps?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wow is thread for real?

The left specifically supports Fred Phelps?

Only according to MachZero. You can read the thread to decide for yourself how seriously to take his accusation.

 

[MachZer0]

Violent and/or illegal activity.

Ddisturbing the peace and inciting a riot are illegal activities

And you're the one who wants laws to curtail them.

I don't believe I've said that, but you have indeed supported not only restriction of emotions but of speech as well

Because there's no way for anyone on the scene to know that you are not that "someone else."

There's no way to know a lot of things regarding whether or not people are going to commit violence, but we aren't all restricted from those activites

see above. The risk is simply too high.

So, you do indeed suppoprt the restriction of speech for law abing citizens

The participants have no legal expectation of privacy on public land.

Why not? A local entity could decide to guarantee that privacy. There are restrictions on some law abiding citizens from having access to some public places.

If it's no more excessive than Abortion clinic bubble zones. The legislature would have to show that the law serves an interest which justifies a reasonable restriction of First Amendment rights.

So where does the Constitution set the limits on those zones?

You have failed to prove (and most likely will continue to fail to prove) that funeral protests have ever had any kind of violent or illegal action associated with them.

It's pointless to prove it because you have your criteria set so that you can excuse other situations

I've never committed an act of bank robbery -- but they still won't let me walk into the vault.

Bank vaults are private property and can set thier own rules. However, public schools are public property and most people are restricted from free access to the grounds, especially at certain times of the day.

The Abortion clinic restrictions apply to a situation which has a long documented history of breaking out into violent and/or illegal activities (often by people with no previous record of violence.) Still waiting for any incident of a funeral protest turning violent -- from Phelps or anyone else.

You are comparing one set of circumstances with a known track record of violence, inculding murder and arson, with another that has no recorded instances of any illegal activites. Funeral protests simply do not attract the same level of zealots as abortion protests.

Are you STILL suggesting that abortion protests never turn violent? Or do you just hate the ACLU that much that facts don't matter?

I hate the ACLU's politically motivated, unbalnced agenda.

 

[tulc]

Thus, it is the message here that makes the diffrence in the ACLU's stance

Uhmm you mean like these?
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16471

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]CLEVELAND — The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio is supporting a preacher in his lawsuit against an Akron suburb that stopped him from protesting abortion during a parade.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The ACLU usually argues on the other side of the anti-abortion movement, fighting bans on a late-term abortion procedure and restrictive parental consent laws.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"But when it comes to free speech, we take all comers," Raymond Vasvari, legal director in the ACLU's Cleveland office, told The Plain Dealer.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati accepted a brief from the ACLU last week. A three-judge panel will hear the case in August.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The ACLU's action caught the preacher, Mark Tatton of Cuyahoga Falls, by surprise.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"I'm shocked, totally shocked," he told the newspaper.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]His case began with a protest at the Cuyahoga Falls Memorial Day parade in 1999.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Tatton, who is aligned with the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, walked the parade route with a placard that displayed an enlarged full-color photo of an aborted fetus.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Officer Gregory Kenepp confiscated the sign and cited Tatton for disorderly conduct after some onlookers became angry. The charges were later dropped, and the sign was returned.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Kenepp said he was worried that Tatton would be beaten up. He filed a written statement in the federal appeals court calling the fetus poster "very graphic, offensive, disturbing and disgusting."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Tatton is seeking about $600,000 in damages, saying his right to protest was taken away.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Last year, U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin of Cleveland dismissed Tatton's suit without a trial. He said Kenepp did the right thing because the sign was offensive and Tatton had provoked intense hostility from crowds watching the parade.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The anti-abortion sign amounted to "fighting words" and wasn't protected, Gwin said.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The ACLU argues that the officer's action was much like what happened to civil rights marchers in the South in the 1960s.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"This decision is truly dangerous because it allows the censorship of the mob enforced at the hands of the police," the ACLU said in its brief.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Cuyahoga Falls officials did not return calls for comment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Tatton, 44, acknowledges he's a die-hard protester who likes to do more than talk. He says his goal is to stir up people with provocative signs tied to Christian religious beliefs.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]He said that at a Barberton Labor Day parade in 1999, he was attacked by an onlooker brandishing a fire extinguisher.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This year, Tatton said, he'll start carrying a sign against Harry Potter books because he thinks they promote witchcraft.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"We may disagree with the sort of society Mr. Tatton would construct, but we support his right to say what he wants," Vasvari said. (emph. added)[/FONT]

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

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]In a similar case, the ICLU previously filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Old Paths Baptist Church last July against a Salem ordinance that would restrict public protest. The ordinance was aimed at curbing anti-abortion protests led by Pastor Lewis outside Washington County Courthouse. The ordinance required groups to apply for parade permits at least four weeks before any protest and pay a $100 application fee.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The ICLU has consistently defended the reproductive rights of women in the courts, in the Indiana General Assembly and in Congress. But the American way is to confront a contrary view, not to muzzle it, said the ICLU. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"Whether we agree with all of the message of Pastor Lewis and his followers is irrelevant," said ICLU Executive Director Fran Quigley. "The ICLU is dedicated to preserving the rights of religious expression and free speech for all Hoosiers." (emph. added)[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Because from what I see here it looks like they have helped several prolife groups.
[/FONT][/FONT]

tulc(of course I just read what happens, I don't have the "ACLU-IS-EVIL (tm) sunglasses that seem to filter all the news about them)

 

[MachZer0]

Uhmm you mean like these?
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16471


or this one
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11484prs20040716.html
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Because from what I see here it looks like they have helped several prolife groups.
[/FONT][/FONT]

tulc(of course I just read what happens, I don't have the "ACLU-IS-EVIL (tm) sunglasses that seem to filter all the news about them)

There are isolated incidences, but in general, the ACLU is deeply embedded with proabortion groups, generally siding with the proabortion movement, as your first article stated

 

[tulc]

the ACLU is deeply embedded with proabortion groups, generally siding with the proabortion movement, as your first article stated

Ahhh and even though they do indeed support abortion (they are about rights after all) they are still willing to help people they don't agree with be able to present the other side of the argument?
Sounds very...American to me.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

 

[MachZer0]

Ahhh and even though they do indeed support abortion (they are about rights after all) they are still willing to help people they don't agree with be able to present the other side of the argument?
Sounds very...American to me.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

All in all, the ACLU has it's own, leftist interpretation of the Constitution. One which requires inserting (not reading) between the lines. They can pick and choose their fights that way

 

[tulc]

All in all, the ACLU has it's own, leftist interpretation of the Constitution. One which requires inserting (not reading) between the lines. They can pick and choose their fights that way

LOL! Which also sounds very American!
tulc(glad ACLU is there!)

 

[Nathan Poe]

LOL! Which also sounds very American!
tulc(glad ACLU is there!)

Yeah, individualism, civil liberties, a government which restricts us only as necessary, and no further -- Darn that ACLU!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ddisturbing the peace and inciting a riot are illegal activities

None of which has ever happened as a result of a funeral protest. Try again.

I don't believe I've said that, but you have indeed supported not only restriction of emotions but of speech as well

Since when?

There's no way to know a lot of things regarding whether or not people are going to commit violence, but we aren't all restricted from those activites

True, there's no way of knowing for certain, which is why reasonable people can look at past histories and make reasonable assumptions...

So, you do indeed suppoprt the restriction of speech for law abing citizens

I never said the First Amendment was absolute. Some restrictions need to be in place to preserve rights that are more important.

And unfortunately, "Fred Phelps hurts my feelings!" doesn't qualify.

Why not? A local entity could decide to guarantee that privacy. There are restrictions on some law abiding citizens from having access to some public places.

And in every case, there is a compelling reason which supercedes even the First Amendment to do so. Again, "Phelps is a mean, mean man!" doesn't even come close.

So where does the Constitution set the limits on those zones?

Perhaps you've heard of an entity known as "The Judiciary Branch"? Ask them.

It's pointless to prove it because you have your criteria set so that you can excuse other situations

Just admit that it never happend, Mach; you're seriously embasassing yourself at this point.

Bank vaults are private property and can set thier own rules. However, public schools are public property and most people are restricted from free access to the grounds, especially at certain times of the day.

Public Schools have an entirely different set of laws associated with them -- "protect the children" and all that.

Try restricting access to a public park sometime...

I hate the ACLU's politically motivated, unbalnced agenda.

And everything else they stand for. Good for you to be so honest.

 

[nvxplorer]

All in all, the ACLU has it's own, leftist interpretation of the Constitution. One which requires inserting (not reading) between the lines. They can pick and choose their fights that way

Please stop misusing the word "leftist."

A leftist advocates an economic ideology. The Bill of Rights does not address economics.

Also, stop blaming the ACLU for something it has no power over. The courts make rulings, not the ACLU. In cases the ACLU wins, we can assume its arguments were correct.

(Does anyone have a spare "thread antacid?"

*cue old Alka-Seltzer commercial*

"I can't believe I read the whole thing")

 

[MachZer0]

None of which has ever happened as a result of a funeral protest. Try again.






Since when?




True, there's no way of knowing for certain, which is why reasonable people can look at past histories and make reasonable assumptions...



I never said the First Amendment was absolute. Some restrictions need to be in place to preserve rights that are more important.

And unfortunately, "Fred Phelps hurts my feelings!" doesn't qualify.



And in every case, there is a compelling reason which supercedes even the First Amendment to do so. Again, "Phelps is a mean, mean man!" doesn't even come close.



Perhaps you've heard of an entity known as "The Judiciary Branch"? Ask them.



Just admit that it never happend, Mach; you're seriously embasassing yourself at this point.



Public Schools have an entirely different set of laws associated with them -- "protect the children" and all that.

Try restricting access to a public park sometime...



And everything else they stand for. Good for you to be so honest.

In a nutshell, what you have just done is confirmed my statement that when group A has a message that is not liked by group B, group B cn always find a way to rationalize the oppression of group A. This is exactly what the ACLU does. Better yet, the ACLU makes it appear that what they are really doing is protecting the rights of all, when in fact they are denying the rights of others. And it will always come down to whether or not the message is in line with leftist thought.

 

[MachZer0]

Please stop misusing the word "leftist."

A leftist advocates an economic ideology. The Bill of Rights does not address economics.

Also, stop blaming the ACLU for something it has no power over. The courts make rulings, not the ACLU. In cases the ACLU wins, we can assume its arguments were correct.

(Does anyone have a spare "thread antacid?"

*cue old Alka-Seltzer commercial*

"I can't believe I read the whole thing")

Leftists advocate much more than economics. And the ACLU has whatever power it can get from favorable judges. Many times, the ACLU gains out of court victories by threats, no judges involved. Sound familiar, like Stalin, Lenin, et al.

 

[nvxplorer]

Leftists advocate much more than economics.

In a current capitalistic society, yes, a leftist also advocates revolt. Other than those Americans who are communist revolutionaries, the term "leftist" does not apply to those you wish to vilify: Liberal Democrats.

And the ACLU has whatever power it can get from favorable judges.

The only power available to the ACLU is to bring cases to court. This power is enjoyed by every citizen.

Haven't you been lauding the Roberts Court? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical in crticizing a desire for "favorable judges?"

Many times, the ACLU gains out of court victories by threats, no judges involved. Sound familiar, like Stalin, Lenin, et al.

Out of court settlements are commonplace. The only "threat" that can be made by the ACLU is to take the case to trial. The opposing side is free to accept or reject any offer.

Your comparison to Stalin is hilarious. Are you claiming the ACLU operates a gulag or executes those who don't comply?

 

[Nathan Poe]

In a nutshell, what you have just done is confirmed my statement that when group A has a message that is not liked by group B, group B cn always find a way to rationalize the oppression of group A. This is exactly what the ACLU does. Better yet, the ACLU makes it appear that what they are really doing is protecting the rights of all, when in fact they are denying the rights of others. And it will always come down to whether or not the message is in line with leftist thought.

And you are saying absolutely nothing at all.

Finally out of ideas, Mach?