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.
I second your fuck.
i third the fuck
Thank God the ACLU protects America from idiots abandoning freedom of speech. They have stood with the most reprehensible people in the world - Nazis, anti-gay bigots, Rush Limbaugh - and have protected the freedoms that make this country great. All, while those who cannot understand the importance of freedom curse them. They are heros.
In principle I agree with you, Dan, I would rather put my trust in the freedom of speech than the government’s ability to tell me what is ‘acceptable’.
However, there is a difference between receiving a permit to march down a public street in support of fascism and gathering at a grave site to mock our soldiers. There is an expectation of privacy for the grieving that does not exist for a demonstration down Main Street. I’m not sure if this expectation can be protected by the law but I’m don’t think that I would have staked the credibility of the ACLU on this case even if they are legally correct.
Yes Dan, the ACLU are heroes to scum like Phelps…
Check out his website… wait, instead of linking it I’ll post it here:
Trust me, I can understand the importance of freedom… but get the fvck real.
I am real. I live in KC, and Fred Phelps has been around here long before he attracted the attention of the nation. He’s reprehensible.
He’s also an American citizen. If you feel okay about suppressing his right to free speech, you’ve started on the slippery slope to suppressing your own.
The ACLU is here to protect you from yourself. Thank them; they deserve it.
Robbie, I think everyone knows how despicible Phelps is.
The rights of the minority are by definition unpopular- that’s exactly why the ACLU feels compelled protect them.
This government was not founded on the principle of ‘majority rules’: quite the contrary. People who called themselves ‘conservatives’ used to be strong defenders of this notion.
o/t
Robbie, could you please explain your support the Dan Halutz’s quote you have featured on your blog: that Israel will “turn back the clock in Lebanon by twenty years.” Do you really take Lebanon as the enemy and not Hezbollah?
The key is that Dan is in Kansas City. He is used to Phelps’ tactics and he knows that he has been protesting funerals for a decade and life has gone on. The rest of the country is just getting their first taste of Phelps and, quite naturally, can’t get beyond the shock that someone would be so disrespectful. Once you get over that and see the big picture, it is clear that Phelps’ First Amendment rights must be upheld or none of ours have to be. Fortunately, the judge in this case works and lives in Kansas City.
The military funerals Phelps is wanting to protest is first and foremost a private family affair. The constitution does not guarantee you the right to intrude on a family’s private grief. They have the right to protest the war all they want. But to go to a familys funeral and start this crap is beyond reprehensible. When the military personnel in attendance gives the twenty one gun salute, they need to have an “accident”.
Michael Gross last night on Glenn Beck’s Headlinee Prime show admitted that the ACLU is taking on the Phelps case, not because of their First Ammendment rights, but because of its political message, which is speaking out against the war.
Which goes to show that Gross doesn’t even know what the Phelps clan is really protesting. I’ve been face to face with the Phelps clan at a military funeral. They’re not anti-war (which Mr. Gross of the ACLU cleary showed that he was tonight). They are anti-homosexual.
But Mr. Gross and the ACLU want to use the Phelps protests as a vehicle to promote their own anti-war agenda. The only speech the ACLU is concerned with protecting in this instance is their own ability to be critical of the President and our war on terror.
Your cite doesn’t support your claim, and that’s crazy talk from a guy who doesn’t work for the ACLU, if it even has a grain of truth. I hereby admit on behalf of the republican party that the Iraq war was a mistake.
Got a link for that Robbie?
I’m imagining what he probably said and how it differs from your interpretation…
No link yet (I’ll look later to see if I can find the video or a transcript) — I was typing as I was watching it.
I heard what he said very cleary, and the tone in which he said it — even the host called him out on it. When Beck said, “so, you’re on the record as saying…”, Mr. Gross started backpedaling from what he very clearly stated.
And, Dan — if you’re qualified to admit anything” on behalf of the Republican Party”, then on behalf of the Democratic Party, I’d like to admit that Dems are terrorist sypathizers who would rather live in Dhimitude than to stand up to Islamofascism.
Robbie, I think that’s Dan’s point: Michael Gross doesn’t have any right to speak for the ACLU. Who cares what he thinks is the rationale for the case?
Dan, I do understand what you’re saying and appreciate your diplomacy, but I’d rather be burned at the stake than have those yahoo’s ‘protect me from myself’… preferably after participating in
a(n unfortunate) 21 gun salute, as Patrick so eloquently put it.
Oh, and here is the transcript Robbie mentioned, from CNN’s site.
Thanks for the link, KW. As anticipated, he said no such thing.
I actually was mistaken in stating that Mr. Gross was with the ACLU. That was my assumption from the show.
I’ve read the transcript this morning, too…and Mr. Gross is a current civil rights attorney, formerly with the ACLU.
So, now I understand Dan’s “speaking for the Republican party” comment as it refers to Mr. Gross and the ACLU.
My bad.
But my opinion of the ACLU still stands.
Dan — that’s exactly what Mr. Gross was saying:
BECK: How did we — how did we — sir, how did we go from your “God hates fags” to the anger over the war? Let`s — let`s just talk — let`s just say this has nothing to do with the war, and I know you`re going to go off on that.
GROSS: It`s about soldiers who died in Iraq.
BECK: Wait a minute, sir. Let`s say…
GROSS: How do you say it has nothing to do with the war? That`s what they`re protesting.
Mr. Gross contends that the Phelps clan is protesting these funerals because of the war (being Anti-war). He thinks its important to protect the content of their speech (which, by the way, is not being infringed upon) because of it’s relationship to the war. To his anti-war views, more accurately.
But I’ve stood face-to-face with these vile pigs…and rest assured, the are not their to voice an anti-war opinion. They are entirely anti-homosexuality. Protesting soldiers’ funerals just gives them the extra publicity that they crave.
I agree with you, Robbie, 100%, on the aim of the protesters. Phelps will protest anything that will get him publicity, and he is not anti-war any more than Rumsfeld is. That’s what makes his hint that the ACLU is involved because of the anti-war message even more clueless.
Potato… pototo…
I don’t think Robbie maliciously depicted Gross’ relationship with the ACLU for the purpose of brainwashing anyone here.
Gross talks out of his ass so much, you don’t know whether to scratch your watch or wind your butt once you’ve listened to his yap.
These people make me sick, protesting the funerals of soldiers killed, and the ACLU makes me sick for supporting this to further their agenda.
The ACLU affiliates in the states decide what cases to take. Gross has never been to Missouri. He doesn’t know (and, really, doesn’t try to say) why the law is being challenged. But the reason is simple: it is patently unconstitutional. Even conservative LAWYERS agree. Compare Conservative PUNDITS.
Time, place, manner restrictions are not per se illegal. And, I would hardly characterize Phelps’ “God Hates Fags” nonsense as political speech.
I agree with you that time place and manner restrictions are legitimate, but the truth is that it is the content that is causing the restrictions.
No one is stopping them from screaming their “God Hates Fags†crap. What is being stopped is their use of it to disrupt funeral services. This law would apply to anyone attempting to disrupt a funeral service, regardless of the message. And again, theirs is not a political message and does not deserve to be viewed as protected speech.
I believe in free speech. I believe it should be curbed when in relation to hate. Thats it. That should decide everything. No arguing with that.
I’ll argue with that. You have the right to hate who ever you want to hate and to express that hate. That is free speech. What you don’t have the right to do, is to incite violence.
Let me amend it to: You don’t have the right to incite violence, make criminal threats, or disrupt other lawful activities, such as a funeral service.
Got something you want to say?
Notes:
You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.
If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.
Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.
And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
Posting tweet...
Copyright (c) 2004-2008 UrbanGrounds. All rights reserved.
Entries (RSS) and Comments
(RSS).
I’d like to know how much the ACLU has cost the American taxpayer with their “freedom of speech” suits for creeps like Phelps.
Left by dianne on July 24th, 2006 at 9:27 am