ACLU Represents Phelps

[pgwenthold]

If it's just a funeral of a KKK member and not a funeral/rally advocating the KKK's views,

How do you make the distinction?

Suppose the KKK uses the funeral like a rally? What do you say? "Well, that's not a REAL funeral"?

Are you going to make a distinction between acceptable and not acceptable funerals? Thank you for telling everyone how they have to mourn. Chip away even MORE at our freedom.

 

[JamesDillon]

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.

As I've explained before, I think that's the best that a state could constitutionally do. If you don't consider that a "ban," then it just isn't possible to ban funeral protests as you define the term.

 

[Katana]

How do you make the distinction?

Suppose the KKK uses the funeral like a rally? What do you say? "Well, that's not a REAL funeral"?

Are you going to make a distinction between acceptable and not acceptable funerals? Thank you for telling everyone how they have to mourn. Chip away even MORE at our freedom.

I see your point. What I meant was a funeral with a podium and some white supremacist spewing his nonsense to a crowd. However, what if it's a family member eulogizing and (naturally) throws his nonsense into the speech like one would with one's religious beliefs? I can see how it could get tricky. And, you're right, it's not appropriate to tell people how to mourn.

I guess I go back to keeping demonstrators at a certain distance from funeral ceremonies. Sorry. They can still demonstrate. No one is preventing that. Why is that such a problem?

 

[bigred]

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

lol @ calling this a "peaceful assembly." Please.

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..

I've already explained that this isn't simply about "annoyance," sorry not doing it again. If you don't get it, maybe someone else can explain it better.

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.

I see. So you wouldn't have a problem with me taking a whiz on your relatives' tombstones then, or buying the house next to yours and burning a cross on it every night. Or yelling filthy foul things at your family all the time, while hiding behind the skirt of "freedom of speech" blah blah etc.

Right?

Yeah right.

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

That we agree on. But again it's not that simple.

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.

Why am I not surprised....

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..

Once again: you're not getting it. We aren't talking about any old garden vareity "ceremony." We're talking about a funeral.

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.

I wasn't aware the KKK held their funerals throughout the streets of...well, anywhere. This is why I said the specifics matter.

Be careful what you ask for.

You would do well to consider that yourself, frankly.

 

[pgwenthold]

lol @ calling this a "peaceful assembly." Please.

What have they done that is non-peaceful? Have they even engaged anyone directly? Or is there mere presence a threat to the peace?

The KKK has gone through this before. The claim that "their presence will insight citizens to act" hasn't worked to stop them.

I see. So you wouldn't have a problem with me taking a whiz on your relatives' tombstones then,

We are talking about activities on public property, so this is a strawman.

And the cross burning issue has been addressed substantially by the courts, so to pretend it is obvious one way or the other is silly. In the end, the court has provided guidelines about why it is ok to outlaw them. In particular, it has to do with the threat of violence associated with them and the intimidation. AFAIK, Phelps' group has never been accused of any violent acts, so there is no comparison between them.

Once again: you're not getting it. We aren't talking about any old garden vareity "ceremony." We're talking about a funeral.

Define "funeral." And then explain why your definition of funeral is better than the KKK grand dragon's son's, who says that his dad's funeral is going to consist of a bunch of the KKK dressed in white sheets chanting KKK slogans in honor of his dead father.

I wasn't aware the KKK held their funerals throughout the streets of...well, anywhere.

But what if they do? You aren't concerned that someone vile will try to exploit this law? I've even figured out how to do it, so it can't be that hard.

 

[Tricky]

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...

I've already addressed the "degree". There are laws that cover assault, intimidation, slander etc. Those laws remain in effect. As long as the funeral protestors are obeying the same laws as people who picket in front of the UN (for example) then they deserve the same protection of the laws. That you find them highly offensive should make no difference. I seriously doubt that the ACLU is arguing that Phelps should be able to break the law with impunity.

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.

I disagree with you. It is a simple question of being offended as long as they are not breaking any laws. What offends a person depends on that person's point of view, morality etc. But it is true that some things come under the heading of "community standards", such as nudity. Anti-nudists have been successfully able to argue that nudity is harmful to the public, a stance with which I disagree. In my ideal world, you should be able to picket nude in front of the Southern Baptist Convention. Though it's not my highest priority, I'd support a change in the laws that allows that.

So taken that way, one could say that what you want is legislation or judicial rulings that define Phelps' activities to be "against community standards". It is your right to seek such legislation/rulings. I (and the ACLU) will oppose you.

I do not wish for society to become even more restrictive on harmless freedom of expression. And if we define "harm" as "anything that offends me", then I think it will lessen our freedom.

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.

They are not allowed to be as obnoxious or insulting as they want. They are restricted by harassment laws, assault laws, slander laws, incitement to riot laws, and a host of other laws. I think that's enough. We don't need "disagreement laws".

 

[bigred]

We are talking about activities on public property, so this is a strawman.

I see, so pretty much anything goes regarding freedom of speech on public property regardless of circumstance.

Talk about a "straw man."

And the cross burning issue has been addressed substantially by the courts, so to pretend it is obvious one way or the other is silly.

?? Was that even supposed to make any sense? Translation please.

In the end, the court has provided guidelines about why it is ok to outlaw them. In particular, it has to do with the threat of violence

Yeah I would never think that protesting a funeral would have a threat of violence associated with it. And really, so what? According to you, freedom of speech should be absolute.

AFAIK, Phelps' group has never been accused of any violent acts,

So? Neither have I. So I guess I should be allowed to burn that cross, according to your logic.

Define "funeral."

Look it up yourself Mr Clinton.

explain why your definition of funeral is better than the KKK grand dragon's son's, who says that his dad's funeral is going to consist of a bunch of the KKK dressed in white sheets chanting KKK slogans in honor of his dead father.

So? That's freedom of speech, remember? ie the thing you're freaking out about?

But what if they do? You aren't concerned that someone vile will try to exploit this law?

So if a law isn't letter perfect, it should be tossed out. uhhhhhh OK.

FYI vile people try to exploit pretty much all laws on regular basis.


Again common sense has to come into play as to what is reasonable in regard to the ceremonies. Yes, it is somewhat subjective. As are most laws, are to one degree or other.

Anyway this little game has quickly gotten old. Trying to justify something as obscene and absurd as desecrating the funeral of a fallen soldier under the comical veil of "freedom of speech" or fear about KKK funerals is patently ridiculous. over n out

 

[bigred]

They are not allowed to be as obnoxious or insulting as they want. They are restricted by harassment laws, assault laws, slander laws, incitement to riot laws, and a host of other laws. I think that's enough. We don't need "disagreement laws".

You don't think this could be considered harrassement or slander??



I give up

 

[LostAngeles]

Doc, if you keep up posting like this, I'm going to have to ask you to run away with me.

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?



Or as Lovecraft so charmingly put it:

 

[chulbert]

You don't think this could be considered harrassement or slander??

In short, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I make an annual donation to the ACLU. This event will not change that.

 

[JamesDillon]

You don't think this could be considered harrassement or slander??



I give up

I generally resist engaging in conversation with anyone prone to the practice of argument by font size, but I can't resist the temptation here. No, what Phelps is doing is neither harassment nor slander. To be liable for slander, the Westboro gang would have to make an untrue and defamatory statement directed at a specific individual. To the best of my knowledge, they don't do that; instead, they carry signs with general statements like the famous "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God For I.E.D.s." If they were to carry a sign at Soldier X's funeral saying something like, "Soldier X Was A Homosexual," and Soldier X's family was able to demonstrate actual harm on the basis of that, then there might be a case for slander, assuming that Soldier X was in fact not a homosexual. (But I'm not sure that a deceased person can sue for slander, anyway.) Harassment, likewise, has to be directed specifically at an individual; standing across the street with an offensive sign isn't even close. Otherwise any sort of picketing would be illegal.

You might consider learning a bit more about the relevant laws and legal doctrines before you play the Limbaugh-esque outraged-incredulity card.

 

[pgwenthold]

You don't think this could be considered harrassement or slander??

You seem to miss the point. If it is harrassment or slander, then it is already illegal and there does not need to be a law to prevent it.

Given that they needed to create a law to stop it means that the action they want to prevent is not harrassment or slander.

 

[Tricky]

You don't think this could be considered harrassement or slander??I give up

It might be considered harassment or slander by private individuals like yourself, but unless some legal authority agrees with you, then it's not. If it is determined to be harassment or slander, then there are already laws to take care of it.

I give up

A wise decision.

 

[Morrigan]

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

Where did I say they "have two choices", exactly?

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?

Nope. I don't see why the ACLU's job must inherently include PR.

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.

Their mission is stated as follows:
"To defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Sure, educating the public might fall under that... and then again, it might not. That's really up to them to decide if this means is worth pursuing. Perhaps they think that the public should already know their own civil rights, and they prefer on the method of taking specific cases to defend where civil rights are directly threatened or violated. I have absolutely no problems with that, myself. And for the record, I don't always agree with the ACLU: I find the stance that spam is protected free speech to be absurd myself.

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.

I really don't see any point you might have with this statement. Sorry.

 

[slingblade]

Seems easy enough to me: defending the right to free speech means defending unpopular, offensive speech.

I think what people are already doing to Phelps is pretty effective, especially the biker groups that also attend and hold up big flags and sheets to block Phelps' ilk from view. Turning the outrage into laughter, at his expense, is just perfect.

 

[drkitten]

Doc, if you keep up posting like this, I'm going to have to ask you to run away with me.

To LA? As charming as the prospect of running away with you might be, I'd have to decline.

If I had a condominium in Los Angeles and a country home in the lowest plane of Hell, I'd simply sell the condo and move to the country.

But thank you anyway.

 

[drkitten]

It might be considered harassment or slander by private individuals like yourself, but unless some legal authority agrees with you, then it's not. If it is determined to be harassment or slander, then there are already laws to take care of it.

Not quite. The problem with the "there are already laws to take care of it" argument is the enforcement problem.

That's one of the reasons that legislatures will often pass apparently redundant laws that re-criminalize existing criminal behavior. ("Anyone jaywalking while carrying a concealed tuna fish shall be guilty of a class B misdimeanor.") The problem is that, while jaywalking is already illegal, evidently there's enough jaywalking-with-tuna to create a perceived problem and existing law enforcement (or prosecution) isn't doing anything about it.

Passing a new law, even a redundant one, can improve the situation in several ways. First, it makes it clear to the relevant agencies that the legislature considers this to be a problem (and therefore provides incentive to enforce the old laws as well as the new). Second, it raises the level of punishment and therefore the level of deterrence -- if I get busted mid-street with my pet tuna now, I get two fines, one for jaywalking and one for jaywalking-with-tuna. Third, it raises public consciousness of the issue and helps (e.g.) the local newspapers hold the local cops' feet to the fire, as it were (Daily Planet Headline : "Why Is Commissioner Gordon Sleeping with "the Fish Law?") Fourth, it makes it clear to the court that the existing jaywalking law is still valid and important, and it's less likely to be ignored as anachronistic or irrelevant.

How many of the local municipalities where Phelps is protesting are afraid to bust him because they don't think that the legislature will back them up? MO has sent a clear signal that the cops should enforce the law "aggressively" on Phelps and Phelps-like protestation.

 

[pgwenthold]

How many of the local municipalities where Phelps is protesting are afraid to bust him because they don't think that the legislature will back them up? MO has sent a clear signal that the cops should enforce the law "aggressively" on Phelps and Phelps-like protestation.

Which I think is probably the key point of all this. Is there any indication that the cops _haven't_ been aggressively trying to nail him? Cops are just as outraged about their activities as anyone else. If there were ANY grounds for busting him on existing laws, they would have done it long ago. Shoot, not just harrassment or slander, but even trespassing or littering, and they would have given him the biggest penalty possible. I don't think they are passing this because of lack of enforcement of existing laws.

 

[Tricky]

Not quite. The problem with the "there are already laws to take care of it" argument is the enforcement problem.

That's one of the reasons that legislatures will often pass apparently redundant laws that re-criminalize existing criminal behavior. ("Anyone jaywalking while carrying a concealed tuna fish shall be guilty of a class B misdimeanor.") The problem is that, while jaywalking is already illegal, evidently there's enough jaywalking-with-tuna to create a perceived problem and existing law enforcement (or prosecution) isn't doing anything about it.
Passing a new law, even a redundant one, can improve the situation in several ways. First, it makes it clear to the relevant agencies that the legislature considers this to be a problem (and therefore provides incentive to enforce the old laws as well as the new). Second, it raises the level of punishment and therefore the level of deterrence -- if I get busted mid-street with my pet tuna now, I get two fines, one for jaywalking and one for jaywalking-with-tuna. Third, it raises public consciousness of the issue and helps (e.g.) the local newspapers hold the local cops' feet to the fire, as it were (Daily Planet Headline : "Why Is Commissioner Gordon Sleeping with "the Fish Law?") Fourth, it makes it clear to the court that the existing jaywalking law is still valid and important, and it's less likely to be ignored as anachronistic or irrelevant.

That's true, there are situations to pass redundant laws, such as recent "hate crime" laws. Still, hate, by itself, is not a crime. Protesting, by itself, is not a crime. So I don't see that hateful protesting can be a crime. If Phelps were breaking the law, I'd agree that more harsh sentencing would be in order because of the hatefulness of his actions. But it's not "redundant" when there are two (or more) non-crimes stacked on top of each other.

How many of the local municipalities where Phelps is protesting are afraid to bust him because they don't think that the legislature will back them up? MO has sent a clear signal that the cops should enforce the law "aggressively" on Phelps and Phelps-like protestation.

I'm all for this, as long as it can be shown that he is engaging in some criminal behavior. If they want to bust him for spitting on the sidewalk, I have no problem with that.