ACLU Supports Hate Speech

[MDM4AU 330]

ACLU files lawsuit for anti-gay church over funeral picket law

Associated Press

Wednesday Jul 26, 2006

A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals across the nation filed suit in federal court Friday, claiming a Missouri law banning such picketing infringed on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Jefferson City on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by showing up at soldiers’ funerals with anti-gay signs.

The church and Rev. Fred Phelps claim God is allowing soldiers, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gays.

Missouri lawmakers were spurred to action after the church protested in St. Joseph last August, at the funeral of Army Spc. Edward Myers.

The law bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. It makes it a violation a misdemeanor, with fines and possible jail time that increase for repeat offenders.

A number of other state laws, including one in Nebraska, and a federal law, signed in May by President Bush, bar such protests within a certain distance from a cemetery or funeral.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU claims the wording of Missouri’s ban seeks to limit the group’s free speech based on the content of their message. They are asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and to issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced, which would allow the group to resume picketing.

"I told the nation as each state went after these laws that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps’ daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the Topeka, Kan.-based church. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."

Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said, "We’re not going to acquiesce to anything that they’re asking for in this lawsuit."

The suit names Nixon, Gov. Matt Blunt and others as defendants.

Protesters in Nebraska have to keep at least 300 feet away from any part of a funeral service, under a bill signed into law by Gov. Dave Heineman. The distance requirement applies one hour before the funeral service and extends two hours after.

Members of the Westboro church have protested at the funerals of several Nebraska soldiers.

LINK

[TexasTiger 12,812]

That's the thing about free speech--- idiots are entitled to it, too. Kinda like the right to vote. Love 'em or hate 'em, the ACLU is consistent regarding their purist view of free speech.

ACLU files lawsuit for anti-gay church over funeral picket law

Associated Press

Wednesday Jul 26, 2006

A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals across the nation filed suit in federal court Friday, claiming a Missouri law banning such picketing infringed on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Jefferson City on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by showing up at soldiers’ funerals with anti-gay signs.

The church and Rev. Fred Phelps claim God is allowing soldiers, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gays.

Missouri lawmakers were spurred to action after the church protested in St. Joseph last August, at the funeral of Army Spc. Edward Myers.

The law bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. It makes it a violation a misdemeanor, with fines and possible jail time that increase for repeat offenders.

A number of other state laws, including one in Nebraska, and a federal law, signed in May by President Bush, bar such protests within a certain distance from a cemetery or funeral.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU claims the wording of Missouri’s ban seeks to limit the group’s free speech based on the content of their message. They are asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and to issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced, which would allow the group to resume picketing.

"I told the nation as each state went after these laws that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps’ daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the Topeka, Kan.-based church. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."

Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said, "We’re not going to acquiesce to anything that they’re asking for in this lawsuit."

The suit names Nixon, Gov. Matt Blunt and others as defendants.

Protesters in Nebraska have to keep at least 300 feet away from any part of a funeral service, under a bill signed into law by Gov. Dave Heineman. The distance requirement applies one hour before the funeral service and extends two hours after.

Members of the Westboro church have protested at the funerals of several Nebraska soldiers.

LINK

252374[/snapback]

[Captain Liger 0]

That's the thing about free speech--- idiots are entitled to it, too.  Kinda like the right to vote.  Love 'em or hate 'em, the ACLU is consistent regarding their purist view of free speech.

252409[/snapback]

I almost agree with you but protesting at the funeral of a slain US servicemember with grieving family members present is not freedom of speech. It's harrassment and is worthy of jail time.

Free speech it is not. Illegal it should be.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

That's the thing about free speech--- idiots are entitled to it, too.  Kinda like the right to vote.  Love 'em or hate 'em, the ACLU is consistent regarding their purist view of free speech.

252409[/snapback]

I almost agree with you but protesting at the funeral of a slain US servicemember with grieving family members present is not freedom of speech. It's harrassment and is worthy of jail time.

Free speech it is not. Illegal it should be.

252412[/snapback]

and it should also be grounds for an immediate and tremendously violent butt kicking.

[Captain Liger 0]

That's the thing about free speech--- idiots are entitled to it, too.  Kinda like the right to vote.  Love 'em or hate 'em, the ACLU is consistent regarding their purist view of free speech.

252409[/snapback]

I almost agree with you but protesting at the funeral of a slain US servicemember with grieving family members present is not freedom of speech. It's harrassment and is worthy of jail time.

Free speech it is not. Illegal it should be.

252412[/snapback]

and it should also be grounds for an immediate and tremendously violent butt kicking.

252511[/snapback]

That too.

[oldautiger 1]

That's the thing about free speech--- idiots are entitled to it, too.  Kinda like the right to vote.  Love 'em or hate 'em, the ACLU is consistent regarding their purist view of free speech.

252409[/snapback]

I almost agree with you but protesting at the funeral of a slain US servicemember with grieving family members present is not freedom of speech. It's harrassment and is worthy of jail time.

Free speech it is not. Illegal it should be.

252412[/snapback]

and it should also be grounds for an immediate and tremendously violent butt kicking.

252511[/snapback]

That too.

252513[/snapback]

Might not be illegal, but it shows EXTREMLEY bad taste.

(the protest, not the Butt kicking)

[TitanTiger 20,471]

So do you guys support banning them from doing their typical protest at any funeral, or just those of service members?

[oldautiger 1]

Any funeral, shows a complete lack of concern for the family.

[MDM4AU 330]

I guess my problem is with them hovering over a family during a time llike this regardless of military service or not. I know my feelings won't neccesarily hold up in court, but that is my feeling. I still need to think about this more as far as the protests go.

I am offended, as a Christian, by these idiots hijacking my religion.

I wonder why the "Hate Speech" and "PC" fanatics aren't speaking up more.

[Tiger Al 0]

I've always thought Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church were a bunch of whack-jobs, even when they were doing this same thing at a dead homosexuals funeral. Seems that there were those who didn't give much of a rip then nor did they give a rip when "free speech zones" were constructed down the street and around the corner for those who protested Bush.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

So do you guys support banning them from doing their typical protest at any funeral, or just those of service members?

252580[/snapback]

Any funeral. Leave the dead alone and show some respect for the families involved.

[MDM4AU 330]

I've always thought Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church were a bunch of whack-jobs, even when they were doing this same thing at a dead homosexuals funeral. Seems that there were those who didn't give much of a rip then nor did they give a rip when "free speech zones" were constructed down the street and around the corner for those who protested Bush.

252633[/snapback]

I don't really have an opinion on the "zones," I don't guess. The main issue with me on this thread is that it is some one's funeral with grieving family members. If the President (D or R) needs extra safety precautions, I have no problem with the zones. But I just don't see it on the same level as a funeral. Apples/Oranges to me. Not saying I definitely would, but I would support "no zones allowed" long before I ever support the freedomn of these losers to infringe on the rights of the mourning to bury their families in peace.

[Tiger Al 0]

MDM, while the main issue with YOU on this thread is the funerals, the issue being challenged is one of free speech, not taste or manners or civility, and whether this groups actions are or are not protected by the first amendment.

As I said before, I thought this group was disgusting a long time ago, but, IF their actions are deemed protected then so be it. They will still be disgusting. If some friend or family member of a soldier, or any of their other targets, wants to infringe on their 'rights', I won't lose any sleep.

[DKW 86 7,411]

You do not have the Freedom of Speech to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

You should not be allowed to yell epithets at a funeral.

[Tiger Al 0]

You should not be allowed to yell epithets at a funeral.

252698[/snapback]

You probably shouldn't do that...but why is that not protected free speech?

[MDM4AU 330]

MDM, while the main issue with YOU on this thread is the funerals, the issue being challenged is one of free speech, not taste or manners or civility, and whether this groups actions are or are not protected by the first amendment.

As I said before, I thought this group was disgusting a long time ago, but, IF their actions are deemed protected then so be it. They will still be disgusting. If some friend or family member of a soldier, or any of their other targets, wants to infringe on their 'rights', I won't lose any sleep.

252692[/snapback]

Yeah, I totally understood what you were saying. And your right, my problem is with where they choose to exercise their free speech.

Serious question, for you or anyone else, is there a time when someone's "freedom of speech" or rather their "freedom to assemble" infinges on another's rights? I guess my total disgust with this situation and their "speech" is clouding my reasoning here. Am I making any sense here? :unsure:

[DKW 86 7,411]

You should not be allowed to yell epithets at a funeral.

252698[/snapback]

You probably shouldn't do that...but why is that not protected free speech?

252707[/snapback]

Well, it may be, I just said it shouldnt happen. If the family goes over there and kicks total butt, who is going to say that is a bad thing?

[Tiger Al 0]

MDM, while the main issue with YOU on this thread is the funerals, the issue being challenged is one of free speech, not taste or manners or civility, and whether this groups actions are or are not protected by the first amendment.

As I said before, I thought this group was disgusting a long time ago, but, IF their actions are deemed protected then so be it. They will still be disgusting. If some friend or family member of a soldier, or any of their other targets, wants to infringe on their 'rights', I won't lose any sleep.

252692[/snapback]

Yeah, I totally understood what you were saying. And your right, my problem is with where they choose to exercise their free speech.

Serious question, for you or anyone else, is there a time when someone's "freedom of speech" or rather their "freedom to assemble" infinges on another's rights? I guess my total disgust with this situation and their "speech" is clouding my reasoning here. Am I making any sense here? :unsure:

252739[/snapback]

Sure, there are many circumstances where 'freedoms' clash.

[Tiger Al 0]

You should not be allowed to yell epithets at a funeral.

252698[/snapback]

You probably shouldn't do that...but why is that not protected free speech?

252707[/snapback]

Well, it may be, I just said it shouldnt happen.

252742[/snapback]

No, you said it shouldn't be allowed. Why is what they do not protected speech?

If the family goes over there and kicks total butt, who is going to say that is a bad thing?

Well, the law for one. Assault and battery is illegal. From an emotional standpoint, though, probably not many would say that's a bad thing.

[quietfan 233]

You should not be allowed to yell epithets at a funeral.

252698[/snapback]

You probably shouldn't do that...but why is that not protected free speech?

252707[/snapback]

Well, it may be, I just said it shouldnt happen.

252742[/snapback]

No, you said it shouldn't be allowed. Why is what they do not protected speech?

If the family goes over there and kicks total butt, who is going to say that is a bad thing?

Well, the law for one. Assault and battery is illegal. From an emotional standpoint, though, probably not many would say that's a bad thing.

252754[/snapback]

Frankly, I think resorting to violence for ANY reason other than self-defense is a bad thing. ("Self" meaning person, family, community, or nation, depending on the circumstances). There is NEVER any reason to "kick anyone's butt" or resort to violence because of mere words and setting.

But as for the anti-gay funeral protests--they are in EXTREMELY poor taste, but protected free speech. As the Supreme Court admitted in the Larry Flint case, freedom of speech means nothing if only the "popular", "acceptable", or "non-obscene" is protected. It's the ideas that are unpopular, ugly, or not politically comfortable that need protecting.

Oh, and as for the "yelling fire in a theater" analogy, the difference there is that it puts lives at immediate risk (from crowd panic/stampede). Again, I think protesting at these funerals is reprehensible, but not life-threatening.

[Argo 8]

Again, I think protesting at these funerals is reprehensible, but not life-threatening.

252835[/snapback]

I disagree -- just because someone hasn't been killed yet, doesn't mean it can't happen. A funeral presents the highest of emotions. Will anyone be shocked if someone gets shot and killed during the protest of a funeral? I wouldn't be.

If this continues to happen, right or wrong, someone will get seriously hurt. There are lucky they haven't ran across the wrong family yet.

[DKW 86 7,411]

Someone upsets greiving folks and then gets beat up, i bet the temp insanity defense or a GOB jury they wouldnt get a a wrist slap.

[Ranger12 46]

You should not be allowed to yell epithets at a funeral.

252698[/snapback]

You probably shouldn't do that...but why is that not protected free speech?

252707[/snapback]

Well, think about it. It causes the family more stress and could cause a mental breakdown, which is then making the liable for causing more mental anguish, which is often used in court cases. Free speech does not cover you causing somebody else more hurt and pain by making a horrible time more stressful.

TT, you are right, they are being consistent. Again, the are supporting the wrong thing as usual. They are whack jobs and that is what the ACLU is all about. If somebody tries to say they are being consistent by saying the represent both liberals and conservatives, because they are representing this group, I laugh in your face. This church group is not close to being conservative, they are anti-American, and that is what the ACLU normally represents.

[TexasTiger 12,812]

If somebody tries to say they are being consistent by saying the represent both liberals and conservatives, because they are representing this group, I laugh in your face. This church group is not close to being conservative, they are anti-American, and that is what the ACLU normally represents.

252901[/snapback]

Laugh in the mirror. You missed my point. They consistently take up the cause of free expression. They are first amendment purists. You are obviously not a first amendment purist. You support a first amendment with numerous asteriks. That's your right. You are not required to respect the Constitution, just as the as$holes from this "church" are not required to respect common decency. Our laws set the outer limits of what is permissible, not the standards of what is preferable. In this case, this "church" has failed miserably in serving God, IMHO, as well as serving their fellow man. Unfortunately, they are but one extreme example of that problem.

The ACLU represents principles more than clients, per se. Their position is not to condone the actions of others, but rather to guard against governmental encroachment on individual rights. For example:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh (search) probably never expected the American Civil Liberties Union (search) to become one of his staunch supporters.

But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe.

"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

"But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," Simon said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

[Tiger Al 0]

If somebody tries to say they are being consistent by saying the represent both liberals and conservatives, because they are representing this group, I laugh in your face. This church group is not close to being conservative, they are anti-American, and that is what the ACLU normally represents.

252901[/snapback]

Laugh in the mirror. You missed my point. They consistently take up the cause of free expression. They are first amendment purists. You are obviously not a first amendment purist. You support a first amendment with numerous asteriks. That's your right. You are not required to respect the Constitution, just as the as$holes from this "church" are not required to respect common decency. Our laws set the outer limits of what is permissible, not the standards of what is preferable. In this case, this "church" has failed miserably in serving God, IMHO, as well as serving their fellow man. Unfortunately, they are but one extreme example of that problem.

The ACLU represents principles more than clients, per se. Their position is not to condone the actions of others, but rather to guard against governmental encroachment on individual rights. For example:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh (search) probably never expected the American Civil Liberties Union (search) to become one of his staunch supporters.

But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe.

"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

"But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," Simon said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

252912[/snapback]

I believe the ACLU also represented Sean Hannity before.