ACLU Represents Phelps

[JamesDillon]

A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality.

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.

 

[drkitten]

I think that the Missouri law is probably constitutional.

Is the text of the law, or of the complaint, available anywhere? I don't know enough about the law itself to hold an opinion, although if the reportage is accurate and it's simply a time, place, and manner restriction regarding picketing, but neutral with regard to the contents of the pickets themselves, you're probably right.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

As crazy mf scum of the Earth as Phelps is, I agree that it is good that the ACLU is doing this. It's hard to protect those who don't deserve it.

 

[writerdd]

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.

Well, I hope Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk show hosts will talk about this on their hate shows. But I know they won't. Amazing how they choose to ignore reality.

 

[BPSCG]

Well, I hope Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk show hosts will talk about this on their hate shows. But I know they won't. Amazing how they choose to ignore reality.

Sometimes it helps to do a little research before putting up a post that says you "know" something:

[Sean] Hannity has been criticized for his claim on the radio that the protesters who were heckling the families of fallen veteran Sgt. Jeremy Doyle were part of the "anti-war left." The protesters were members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a conservative religious group led by Fred Phelps. He has since correctly identified the protesters, criticized them extensively, and hosted several debates between representatives of the Church and veterans' groups.

Link.

 

[JamesDillon]

Well, I hope Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk show hosts will talk about this on their hate shows. But I know they won't. Amazing how they choose to ignore reality.

Why wouldn't Limbaugh et al. want to talk about this? It seems like they should jump at the chance to highlight the ACLU's association with the most universally hated man in America.

 

[JamesDillon]

Is the text of the law, or of the complaint, available anywhere?

Mo. Rev. Stat. 578.501:

578.501. Short title--protest activities at funerals

1. This section shall be known as "Spc. Edward Lee Myers' Law".

2. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in picketing or other protest activities in front of or about any church, cemetery, or funeral establishment, as defined by section 333.011, RSMo, within one hour prior to the commencement of any funeral, and until one hour following the cessation of any funeral. Each day on which a violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense. Violation of this section is a class B misdemeanor, unless committed by a person who has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case the violation is a class A misdemeanor.

3. For the purposes of this section, "funeral" means the ceremonies, processions and memorial services held in connection with the burial or cremation of the dead.

Edit: I did some looking around but I can't find a copy of the complaint. It doesn't seem to be posted on the ACLU's website, though there is a complaint challenging a similar Kentucky law posted there. If anyone else has more luck than I had finding the complaint, please post a link.

 

[Meffy]

Good on the ACLU for representing Phelps. He's a citizen; it must be done. I hope they lose.

 

[shecky]

Good on the ACLU.

 

[Number Six]

This will make the ACLU look worse. It won't be perceived as the ACLU protecting a religious group, rather it'll be perceived as the ACLU disdaining religion by choosing to protect a religious group that even religious people hate.

I realize the goal of the ACLU is to protect civil liberties, but pretending you're in a vacuum instead of a larger society does no good in the long run. Their PR is terrible and as near as I can tell their attitude is "We protect civil liberties and we don't particularly care what people think," which, if they really want to protect civil liberties, is a really stupid approach to take. They're putting idealism over practicality. Maybe I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly, but while I used to find that sort of thing admirable, now I just find it dumb.

 

[shecky]

I realize the goal of the ACLU is to protect civil liberties, but pretending you're in a vacuum instead of a larger society does no good in the long run. Their PR is terrible and as near as I can tell their attitude is "We protect civil liberties and we don't particularly care what people think,"

Even more good on the ACLU.

 

[Upchurch]

Their PR is terrible and as near as I can tell their attitude is "We protect civil liberties and we don't particularly care what people think," which, if they really want to protect civil liberties, is a really stupid approach to take. They're putting idealism over practicality. Maybe I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly, but while I used to find that sort of thing admirable, now I just find it dumb.

The thing is, if they only protected the civil liberties of those groups they personally agreed with, they wouldn't really be protecting civil liberties. They would just be protecting those groups they agreed with.

Precisely the problem with modern political organizations (read: Republicans and Democrats), imho, is that they have put practicality before idealism.

 

[Ohmer]

Good on the ACLU for representing Phelps. He's a citizen; it must be done. I hope they lose.

My sentiments exactly . I see the ACLU in this case like a public defender representing a horrible criminal. I hope they lose, but their existence keeps the system functioning for the rest of us. It keeps lawmakers and law enforcement on their toes.

 

[drkitten]

Mo. Rev. Stat. 578.501:

Thanks.

Looks pretty content-neutral on the face of it, doesn't it?

 

[BPSCG]

I predict this will do wonders for their fundraising.

 

[JamesDillon]

Thanks.

Looks pretty content-neutral on the face of it, doesn't it?

Sure does. I found one article in some Kansas paper suggesting that some "legal scholars" think it might be unconstitutionally vague; I don't really see how, but I'm not an expert on the vagueness doctrine, so I don't know about that. But it seems like a perfectly legitimate time/place/manner restriction to me.

 

[pgwenthold]

Thanks.

Looks pretty content-neutral on the face of it, doesn't it?

I don't think so. It outlaws "picketing or other protest activities" but appears to allow supportive demonstration. It probably depends on how you define "picketing," but the wording of the law implies that picketing means protest.

IOW, you are allowed to demonstrate with signs that say "Spc. Edward Lee Myers is a War Hero" but you are not allowed to demonstrate with signs that say "Spc. Edward Lee Myers died to support the cause of homosexuals."

The law needs to be content neutral, either allowing both types of activity, or outlawing them both. If it were to say

"It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in demonstrative activities in front of or about any church, cemetery, or funeral establishment..."

then it would be ok. Of course, this could cause some limitations on those actually attending the funeral, but that is going to be a consequence when you try to regulate speech.

If supportive demonstration is allowed, then protest must also be allowed.

 

[JamesDillon]

If supportive demonstration is allowed, then protest must also be allowed.

That's true. I suppose it depends on how the court would interpret "picketing." However, a general principle of statutory interpretation is that a court shall construe the statute so as to avoid constitutional difficulties wherever possible, so I don't think this is a ground for overturning the statute; the court should just rule that "picketing" means any kind of demonstration.

 

[casebro]

The thing is, if they only protected the civil liberties of those groups they personally agreed with, they wouldn't really be protecting civil liberties. They would just be protecting those groups they agreed with.

.

So, show me just ONCE where the ACLU defended the civil liberties gauranteed by the Second Ammendment.

 

[Upchurch]

So, show me just ONCE where the ACLU defended the civil liberties gauranteed by the Second Ammendment.

I guess it depends on how one understands what that civil liberty actually is:
(source)

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.