ACLU Represents Phelps

[bigred]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html?sub=AR

My thought on this is, good for the ACLU for standing up for the civil rights of some of the most reprehensible Americans alive, though I think that the Missouri law is probably constitutional.

My thought on this is that the entire ACLU and anyone who agrees with such lunacy should their heads examined, if not operated on. And pardon me for stating the absurdly obvious.

Speaking of which, I reiterate, for only about the 10 billionth time:

FREEDOMS ARE NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE ABSOLUTE.


It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't get this. It's like reminding people that 1+1=2.

The ACLU is a wart on this society like few others.

 

[Katana]

FREEDOMS ARE NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE ABSOLUTE.

I agree with you!

The ACLU is a wart on this society like few others.

Having said that, why so much hostility? It does some good.

The ACLU is involved in preventing congress from censoring cable and the internet for "indecency". That's a good cause.

It kept a Louisiana governor from denying funding to any school that didn't teach abstinence-only sex ed. Also good.

Kept the Christian Coalition from overturning the law banning discrimination against homosexuals. I think that's all right!

OK. You get the idea.

 

[drkitten]

My thought on this is that the entire ACLU and anyone who agrees with such lunacy should their heads examined, if not operated on. And pardon me for stating the absurdly obvious.

They're looking at the "big picture," and you apparently are not.

People do not lose their civil rights simply because they're objectionable, villainous lunatics. And it's precisely the objectionable villainous lunatics who need to have their rights protected, because every right-thinking person will correctly recognize that Phelps & Co. are useless wastes of water and that society would be better off without them. The problem is that a law used (morally) to squish Phelps like the wriggling insect that he is could then be used (immorally) to stifle legitimate dissent and expressions of speech, unless that law is extremely carefully crafted.

Has "A Man For All Seasons" already been quoted on this thread?

ROPER: So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every tree in England to do that.

MORE: Oh, and when the last law was down and the devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.

Or as Lovecraft so charmingly put it:

I say to you againe, doe not call up Any that you can not put downe.

 

[Number Six]

Yes, because being a bunch of pandernig populists would be so much better... the ACLU aren't diplomats, I fail to see why they need the PR you say they do. They simply do the job they have to do, and if a bunch of ignorant peasants whine about it, it's really their own damn problem. I don't see elitism as a bad thing, not in this case at least.

That's a false dichotomy. They have a million choices, not two.

You wrote this:

"I fail to see why they need the PR you say they do."

Then you wrote this:

"They simply do the job they have to do, and if a bunch of ignorant peasants whine about it, it's really their own damn problem."

Don't you see a contradiction there? You're complaining about the ignorant peasants while simultaneously saying it's okay for the ACLU to repeatedly pass up opportunities to educated large numbers of people. They simply have a job to do, you say? What is that job? Becuase if that job is protecting civil liberties then a means of pursuing that is to do PR and connect with the public, which ultimately provides all the laws and all the judges that interpret the laws.

Civil liberties aren't the result of someone sitting in a room doing math where 5 + 3 = 8 regardless of what anyone thinks. Rather, civil liberties are the result of what everyone thinks. If everyone decides nobody should have civil liberties anymore then civil liberties go away.

 

[Tricky]

My thought on this is that the entire ACLU and anyone who agrees with such lunacy should their heads examined, if not operated on. And pardon me for stating the absurdly obvious.

Speaking of which, I reiterate, for only about the 10 billionth time:

FREEDOMS ARE NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE ABSOLUTE.


It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't get this. It's like reminding people that 1+1=2.

The ACLU is a wart on this society like few others.

Freedom is not absolute. That would be anarchy. But laws should not be made to keep people from being offended, because as soon as the easily-offended get into office, there go a lot more of our freedoms.

It is unfortunate that our freedom is exploited by those such as Phelps, but it is the price we pay. I am against making America more repressive, even if it costs me my lunch.

And you are free to shout, but it makes you look like an extremist. I'm not sure that's the look you want to be going for.

 

[KelvinG]

Freedom is not absolute. That would be anarchy. But laws should not be made to keep people from being offended, because as soon as the easily-offended get into office, there go a lot more of our freedoms.

It is unfortunate that our freedom is exploited by those such as Phelps, but it is the price we pay. I am against making America more repressive, even if it costs me my lunch.

And you are free to shout, but it makes you look like an extremist. I'm not sure that's the look you want to be going for.

But, is there really anything so wrong with a law that grants grieving people the right to have a funeral without screaming loons like Phelps and Co. from disrupting it?

I agree, if it leads to suppression of other forms of free speech then it might be a bad thing, but isn't it possible to make the law such that it's very specific in denying protestors the right to disrupt funerals and that's it. I don't buy this whole idea that it'll lead down a slippery slope and suppress other forms of free speech any more than I think denying a person the right to yell "fire" crowded theatre will.

 

[Dave1001]

Possibly nothing, if "what those who wrote it intended it to mean" is self-evidently stupid and contrary to the public interest in our more enlightened times. See the radium salts example above.

"Strict constructionism" is the belief that a bunch of rich 18th-century white males knew more about our current societies practices, problems, and potential solutions than we do. This belief is therefore obviously misguided. When we're talking about any other area than constitutional law, it's well recognized that laws can be obsolete, anachronistic, and ill-advised. But for some reason this doesn't apply to the U.S. Constitution?

In my opinion these are rather weak grounds to oppose strict constructionism or other textualist approachs to constitutional interpretation. The constitution has a build in mechanism to update it to current societies: it's called the amendment process.

I think the most reasonable grounds to oppose strict constructionism and other textualist approaches is that any amendment is the product of the inputs of so many different and competing factions, that it's really not possible to say exactly what an amendment means, even at the time it was written. It really comes down to what 5 supreme court judges at any given time says it means.

 

[Dave1001]

There are slander laws, and that doesn't cause physical harm. I'm not sure that whether there is a physical nature to perceived harm should be the only barometer. I do understand your argument, though.

As for the religious right, I'm not sure even they would want to be identified with this group.

can there be criminal slander or is just a tort? My impression is that it's just a tort, and I'm guessing it's tied to the economic harm that slander causes. I don't think that would apply here.

Maybe IIED? (intentional infliction of emotional distress?) But Phelps motivation is political, not to cause emotional harm to the families, unless there's evidence uncovered that that is a base motivation of his group. I don't like the idea of folks having a type of heckler's veto of being able to say "you burning this flag, or you having this political protest cause me emotional harm, therefore you owe me damages". Only if it can be shown that protest or flag-burning was done not to excercise speech, but for the partial purpose of intentionally causing such emotional harm.

 

[drkitten]

can there be criminal slander or is just a tort?

I can't think of any jurisdictions that have criminal slander, but many have criminal libel. In this context, the difference is minimal.

 

[pgwenthold]

I agree, if it leads to suppression of other forms of free speech then it might be a bad thing, but isn't it possible to make the law such that it's very specific in denying protestors the right to disrupt funerals and that's it.

Are Phelps' folks actually "disrupting" funerals? As far as I can see, they are already required to not interfere with things like people attending and they aren't allowed on private property. If they are standing on the sidewalk yelling loudly during a burial, I don't see how that could be prohibited without infringing on a lot of other activities.

Moreover, be careful what you ask for. When the Grand Dragon of the KKK dies, and the KKK uses the funeral to celebrate all that he stands for, do you really want to prevent people from protesting?

There can certainly be restrictions on free speech, particularly where free speech infringes upon other rights or causes physical danger. But the right to a quiet funeral is not obviously that type of situation. Yeah, it's subjective, but my opinion is that we want to strictly avoid prohibiting speech solely because it annoys us.

 

[Katana]

Wait! We'd better not stop them. It'll just piss God off even more.

Found on the Anti-Defamation League website:

"America. A sodomite nation of flag-worshiping idolaters. Many States—and now Congress—are moving in a frenzied orgy of lawless, unconstitutional legislation to criminalize WBC’s Gospel preaching. They thereby pour gasoline on the raging flames of God Almighty’s wrath which is punishing America by killing and maiming troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse and more of it is coming....Military funerals are pagan orgies of idolatrous blasphemy where they pray to the dunghill gods of Sodom and play taps to a fallen fool."
-- WBC news release, May 11, 2006

Pretty scary. They hate homosexuals, Jews, blacks, all other Christians, and America as a whole. Do they like anyone outside their insane ranks?

 

[brodski]

Pretty scary. They hate homosexuals, Jews, blacks, all other Christians, and America as a whole. Do they like anyone outside their insane ranks?

Possibly, although they run the "godhatessweeden" website" and after 7/7 called the UK the "isle of the sodomite dammed" (which incidentally I think we should change our name to, it sound kind of cool ) they did set up a website thanking god for the Iraqi "insurgency" for killing US and UK troupes. So remember, according to the WBC- US UK and every other western democracy "bad", Muslim terrorists "good".

 

[bigred]

I agree with you!

Having said that, why so much hostility? It does some good.

The Nazi party did a lot of good in 1930s Germany too. I'm not a fan of theirs either.

And no of course I'm not saying they're the same thing and realize the ACLU has done good in its lifetime - the point is an organization that does SOME good can still be bad, even dangerous. esp when they start to enjoy the taste of power a bit too much.

 

[JamesDillon]

In my opinion these are rather weak grounds to oppose strict constructionism or other textualist approachs to constitutional interpretation. The constitution has a build in mechanism to update it to current societies: it's called the amendment process.

I think the most reasonable grounds to oppose strict constructionism and other textualist approaches is that any amendment is the product of the inputs of so many different and competing factions, that it's really not possible to say exactly what an amendment means, even at the time it was written. It really comes down to what 5 supreme court judges at any given time says it means.

This is the sort of thing that legal philosophers spend their careers arguing about, and the problem is that there doesn't appear to be a consistently satisfactory solution. Drkitten is of course quite right that times change and principles that made sense to one generation may seem obsolete or misguided to the next (though I don't think radium is a fair example-- scientific knowledge is cumulative in a sense that moral "progress" or evolving standards of decency are not). On the other hand, if we fully divorce the "meaning" of the Constitution from its text, we run the risk of leaving the (relatively) democratic decisions made by the legislature subject to the whim of a small number of unelected judges who feel free to substitute their own conception of justice for that of the elected representatives (the "Imperial Judiciary," in Justice Scalia's memorable words).

Personally I favor a more restrained model of judicial interpretation, that perhaps isn't quite originalism, but would grant the judge far less discretion to depart from the original understanding of the text than does the "living Constitution" model. This isn't saying that a group of eighteenth-century white men knew better than we do how a twenty-first century society should be organized. Rather, it's saying only that updates or revisions to the governing principles of our society should, as much as possible, be made democratically through the legislative process, or when necessary, by constitutional amendment, rather than simply read in to the existing framework by five unelected, and generally unaccountable, justices. Burt Neuborne of NYU wrote an article (somewhere, I don't remember where I read it) not too long ago arguing that the current polarization of the Supreme Court and the general acrimony in American politics, particularly on culture war issues, is in part a backlash against the decades-long liberal/Democratic practice of pursuing sweeping legal change through the courts when it would have been impossible to achieve the same results through the legislative process at the state or national level. I think he's largely right about that; whatever short-term gains were achieved by Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the long-term result has been growing public cynicism about the democatic process and the legitimacy of the courts. I think that the rising tide of religious conservatism is due at least in part to a long history of progessive judges' well-intentioned overstepping of their authority in deciding cases with important social implications.

 

[bigred]

Freedom is not absolute. That would be anarchy. But laws should not be made to keep people from being offended, because as soon as the easily-offended get into office, there go a lot more of our freedoms.

That sounds great in theory, but doesn't hold up in reality. Like anything, it's a question of degree (ie not black and white) and common sense SHOULD come into play. Regrettably, that's usually asking far too much these days....

Further, this isn't simply a question of being offended, but what of the freedoms - or more accurately, the rights - of the people having the ceremony? When these slime pull their antics, they are invading the freedom/rights these people should have to hold a ceremony for their deceased family member/friend without the mindless hateful crapola these morons pull.

Finally, the idea that people should be allowed to be as obnoxious or insulting to anyone in any way they want is also a path to anarchy.

 

[bigred]

Moreover, be careful what you ask for. When the Grand Dragon of the KKK dies, and the KKK uses the funeral to celebrate all that he stands for, do you really want to prevent people from protesting?

Might depend on what you mean by "uses the funeral to celebrate all that he stands for," but offhand....absolutely. No I don't like it, but it's his funeral and none of my freakin business. If someone doesn't like it they don't have to be there.

 

[pgwenthold]

Further, this isn't simply a question of being offended, but what of the freedoms - or more accurately, the rights - of the people having the ceremony? When these slime pull their antics, they are invading the freedom/rights these people should have to hold a ceremony for their deceased family member/friend without the mindless hateful crapola these morons pull.

Since when does that right outweigh the rights of citizens to peacefully assemble?

I realize there are rights not enumerated in the constitution, but the right to not be annoyed, even at a funeral, has never been one that has been held in particular regard in our country. More importantly, when it comes to this imagined right and one explictly described in the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights is going to win. Particularly when it comes down to a justification that it annoys some citizens.

Free speech is meaningless unless we also protect stuff we don't like. It's comes as a package.

I am opposed to prohibiting picketing at funerals out of principle, because there may be some day when I want to protest at a funeral. See my example above of the KKK grand dragon.

Does the KKK have the right/freedom to hold a ceremony for the Grand Dragon in which they celebrate the hateful views of the KKK? Sure they do. But this law means that I can't go and protest them.

See the beginning of this discussion where JamesDillon proffered that people involved in the funeral should be allowed to have a vigil. If it is a KKK funeral where they are chanting racial epitaphs, is that still OK? This law would prevent citizens from protesting them. Wow, thanks. We just gave the KKK a _protected_ venue to spew their hatred in the streets of Missouri. And no one is allowed to counter-protest for an hour before and an hour after.

Be careful what you ask for.

 

[JamesDillon]

Personally I'd be fine with a prohibition on funeral protests that extended to the KKK, under the theory that everyone should be able to hold a memorial service without interference or distraction by political opponents. But your point is well-taken, that we should think very carefully before imposing even content-neutral prior restraints on speech.

Edit: And, as I pointed out above, I don't think that a state could constitutionally ban a counter-demonstration on the other side of town, or sufficiently far enough away from the funeral itself so as not to be an unwelcome distraction.

 

[Katana]

If it's just a funeral of a KKK member and not a funeral/rally advocating the KKK's views, attendees should be afforded the same right to peacefully assemble without protesters disrupting their mourning as the families of our soldiers.

 

[Dave1001]

Personally I'd be fine with a prohibition on funeral protests that extended to the KKK, under the theory that everyone should be able to hold a memorial service without interference or distraction by political opponents. But your point is well-taken, that we should think very carefully before imposing even content-neutral prior restraints on speech.

Edit: And, as I pointed out above, I don't think that a state could constitutionally ban a counter-demonstration on the other side of town, or sufficiently far enough away from the funeral itself so as not to be an unwelcome distraction.

JamesDillon, it's not really a ban on funeral protests if one is allowed to protest far enough away that it's not an unwelcome distraction. Since far enough away would only be out of eyesight and earshot.