# ACLU Fights For Anti-Gay Phelps Clan **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 23, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739 "2006-07-23T20:02:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/101 "2006-07-25T04:53:42Z")
[QUOTE=duffer] …suspect you’re trying to help in pointing out how I can improve. For those that aren’t familiar with my tortured posting style, this is how you are gently reminded to work on posting style… [/quote] Yeah, that would be me, its why I’m called “Mr. Sunshine”. > [@](#): > > …BTW, **'luc** , how ya been? Haven’t seen you in a while. Pretty well, I suppose, but I seem to have become kindly and avuncular. I wonder if there is a support group? ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/102 "2006-07-25T05:07:13Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] C’mon, why not defend the good guys? [/QUOTE] Because “good” is a subjective term and a matter of opinion. Issues of Constitutionality aren’t…or won’t be once a court determines them. We worried that we’d be spreading our resources too thin. We worried that the negative publicity would stop people from contributing. But we weren’t worried we’d lose the fight. There’s a reason people fear the ACLU and get annoyed when they join a fight. It’s not because the ACLU is full of left wing hippy zealots, It’s because it’s packed full of lawyers who know damn well know the law and always come the battle on sound legal ground. Am I one of those lawyers? Hell if I know. Truth be told I’ve only been on the legal panel for a few months so I still have a lot to learn. In the time I’ve been there we’ve discussed cases that we didn’t pursue because they didn’t deal with civil liberties. There were cases we didn’t pursue because they had alternate legal and non legal remedies available and didn’t necessarily need the ACLU’s help. But I have NEVER seen a case come before us where we dismissed it because, while it was blatantly unconstitutional and infringed on someone’s civil liberties, it just wasn’t worth bothering about. We fight the fights that need fighting. Even the ones you might not see as “good guys” because, if you’ll pardon the phrase, we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. If you ignore the “bad guys” and ignore when their civil liberties are infringed upon, you give up too much ground. When the “good guys” get hit next, there’s too much precedent and too much complacency towards the infringement to affect a powerful enough change. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/103 "2006-07-25T05:14:11Z")
Well, **Ender** , sometimes you guys _really_ piss me off! Keep up the good work. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/104 "2006-07-25T05:37:43Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] You lost me on that one, **Duff**. The linked article says the ACLU guy is going to debate the loathsome Mr. Duke. The debate s4tting implies that they will be taking an opposing position. In what way does imply some heinous intent? How does it follow that… “…people that are the first to tell people they disagree with to shut their mouths for saying things disagreeable.” Is it that they take the rabidly Trotskyist position in favor of affirmative action? A debatable position, to be sure, but hardly a radical one. [/QUOTE] Let’s see if I can somehow clarify this in a hurry, work beckons in a few hours. The thing I was reading was a lawyer for a supposedly neutral organization, with the job (lawyer) of drumming up people/groups to sue. Other than suing “wrongdoers”, what does the ACLU do? (Well, defense counsel, but I’m lumping the legal stuff together in all forms. Remove the lawyers and what is the ACLU?) So you have a person that is passionate about defending Constitutional Rights. Noble I’ll be the first to say. It’s the way they (ACLU) go about it that rubs me the wrong way. I’m sure there are a few cites that will make me think they’re the saviors. But I can bet the house they’re few and far between, at least when considering the cause being advanced. In this case, there is a person debating the views of someone that theoretically is eligible to be defended by said lawyer. So if Ron Austin is fighting for free speech, why is he getting involved in debates? Granted, a lawyer (I’m not slamming lawyers in general) is allowed an opinion to be stated. But if your mission in life is to defend people’s right to say what they think/beleive, why do it outside a court of law? Why take your case to a debate forum to make your point? Why try to win the battle before it’s begun in the courts if you’re neutral? It seems the answer is to take a position to actively work to change public opinion before it ever gets to the courts. A great tactic as it paved the way for the Republicans to enact the Equal Rights Amendment (sorry, had to remind some people of that), but to claim to be a neutral organization while actively working to help those they agree with, rather than those they disagree with. Hardly seems neutral and noble in this light. OTOH, sometimes actions speak louder than words. And you take into account that the glorious actions don’t make up for what is really happening. Anyone want to be the first to invoke \*\*\*\*\*ization? > [@http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html](#): > > It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today. Of course, when we visit NAMBLA, we understand the innocence and and benign nature of the legal resources used by the ACLU. According to [NAMBLA](http://216.220.97.17/pederasty.htm): Um, gay Dopers, can we get a ruling on the defense of this? [quote=] The issue of love between men and boys has intersected the gay movement since the late nineteenth century, with the rise of the first gay rights movement in Germany. In the United States, as the gay movement has retreated from its vision of sexual liberation, in favor of integration and assimilation into existing social and political structures, it has increasingly sought to marginalize even demonize cross-generational love. [/quote] Seems more harsh than anything I’ve seen in the Op-Ed pages lately, even in this Red state. A call for sleeping with children. Obviously NAMBLA doesn’t speak for gays in general, but remember that “info” when writing any checks in the future to the ACLU. Keep in mind this is some of the public’s perception basis when when judges and lawmakers vote the way they do. [quote=] Pederasty - that is, love between a man and a youth of 12 to 18 years of age - say middle-class homosexuals, lesbians, and feminists, has nothing to do with gay liberation. Some go so far as to claim, absurdly, that it is a heterosexual phenomenon, or even “sexual abuse.” What a travesty! [/quote] A travesty, I tells ya! My nephew is 12, why the hell should I be looked down upon for having sex with him? My neice is 16 and growing to be a very pretty woman. Why am I denied the pleasures Lord? WHY!?!?!? A travesty I can’t “love” them the way they deserve to be! Why should anyone deny me the right to have sex with them? At least the ACLU is there to defend my right to actively seek, through simple speech, the right to say “Hey, I know you’re 12, but let’s have sex!” I’m writing a check tomorrow. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/105 "2006-07-25T05:40:02Z")
crap, can someone report that to fix the coding? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/106 "2006-07-25T06:06:46Z")
[QUOTE=duffer] …A travesty I can’t “love” them the way they deserve to be! Why should anyone deny me the right to have sex with them? At least the ACLU is there to defend my right to actively seek, through simple speech, the right to say “Hey, I know you’re 12, but let’s have sex!”… [/quote] You serious? You can’t see a distinction between defending the right to _advocate_ a point of view and _concurring_ with that point of view? Are you seriously suggesting that pederastry is part of the ACLU’s “secret agenda”? I mean, WTF? No, really, WTF? ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/107 "2006-07-25T06:41:05Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] You serious? You can’t see a distinction between defending the right to _advocate_ a point of view and _concurring_ with that point of view? Are you seriously suggesting that pederastry is part of the ACLU’s “secret agenda”? I mean, WTF? No, really, WTF? [/QUOTE] Maybe I need a definition of 'advocating". Granted, the ACLU isn’t standing on the corner encouraging me to bed my niece, but if they want to go to court and defend me for doing so, I’d have to take a second look at the organization. Care to send a pic of any daughters/sons and nieces/nephews you have available? Free speech, according to what NAMBLA and the ACLU’s lawsuits imply, mean that so long as they (your family members) want to directly contact me and come to my home without supervision, it’s all OK. Just make sure they’re at least 12 years old. That’s the stated age that’s acceptable posted on the website of the group defended by the ACLU. Nothing wrong here, totally acceptable. If that’s acceptable, my e-mail is in my profile. You know goddamned well you’d never pass that on. Because you know it’s wrong to fuck a 12 year-old. You might have some other reason to defend the ACLU, but based on defending NAMBLA, I won’t understand it. I’ll say it flat out. Launching a defense of NAMBLA has put the ACLU on my “ban” list. Nobody will be able to justify to me sleeping with a 12 year old, Male or female. And don’t give me the links to how other cultures accespt it. If that’s the social norm you want, move to that country. Michael Jackson has been looking for a home, and he still hasn’t unpacked his travel bag. Pedophiles just don’t seem to be very popular. But I guess I should be glad a group is doing what they can to defend the perverts? Go First Amendment! ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/108 "2006-07-25T10:11:14Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] You serious? You can’t see a distinction between defending the right to _advocate_ a point of view and _concurring_ with that point of view? Are you seriously suggesting that pederastry is part of the ACLU’s “secret agenda”? I mean, WTF? No, really, WTF? [/QUOTE] Based on his post following your’s, I believe the answer is “No.” I also believe it proves that he’s not really bothered to read this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/109 "2006-07-25T10:17:13Z")
**duffer** , you have convinced me. Up until now I would have said that you had a First Amendment right to speak whatever foolishness you want, but you have made it clear to us all that standing for your rights equals endorsing your point of view. So if I disagree with you, I now have the obligation to do my best to stifle everything you have to say? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/110 "2006-07-25T14:02:51Z")
[QUOTE=duffer] I’ll say it flat out. Launching a defense of NAMBLA has put the ACLU on my “ban” list. [/quote] I’ll spend some time out here on this lonesome, creaky branch and say that the ACLU was on your “ban” list way the hell before they ever defended NAMBLA. Their defense of same just gives you a more comfortable place from which to claim that they’re usually wrong. And **Scylla**? I’ve yet to see anyone telling anyone else to shut up in this thread. It may yet happen, and I’ve no doubt that it’s happened in the past, but it’s not a phenomenon unique to defenders of the ACLU. Claiming that it is does nothing to bolster your argument. -Waste ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/111 "2006-07-25T14:07:08Z")
[QUOTE=duffer] Maybe I need a definition [/QUOTE] No, maybe you need the entire dictionary, since you are still baffled about the difference between defending the right to say X and agreeing with X. (That’s a distinction most people learn before reaching adulthood. Just saying.) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/112 "2006-07-25T14:16:06Z")
**duffer** , what do you believe should be the legal punishment for someone saying, for example, “It should be legal for a sixty-year-old man to have sex with a twelve-year-old boy”? Should speaking these words carry a six-month jail sentence? A year? Two years? Life? Death? Please be specific. I’m having trouble following your argument, and this will help clarify it. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/113 "2006-07-25T14:32:34Z")
[QUOTE=Enderw24] The one thing our legal panel was unanimous about was that this law is blatantly unconstitutional. I think most people on here have agreed to that already without even seeing the law. Fred Phelps wants to disparage the US, our troops, and the fags of the world. Whatever you think about his message, the message itself is undeniably political in nature and should be afforded the highest of Constitutional protections. Yet to limit protests with a window of an hour before a funeral and an hour after total eliminates the purpose of a funeral protest. You all have been to a funeral. If one starts at 12:00 noon, what people are there at 11:00 or 1:00? The groundskeepers. [/QUOTE] But why is that unconstitutional? The guy may have the right to disparage the US, our troops, and the fags of the world, and even the right to have a rally or protest where he does so, but that doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t mean that he can do it whereever or whenever he wants. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/114 "2006-07-25T15:36:43Z")
One thing that I think is helpful to me about the funeral protest situation is that it helps me see the other side of other issues like flag burning. It’s tough for me to sympathise with people who are so utterly offended by the act of flag burning that they feel it’s more important than free speech, because I was never raised to feel that the flag was sacred. Emotionally, burning the flag doesn’t do anything to me. But protesting funerals really makes my skin crawl. This helps me have a bit more empathy towards those who’s skin crawl when they see a flag burning and want that banned. Now, don’t start arguing with me about how the two aren’t exactly the same; I didn’t say they are, and don’t believe they are. All I’m saying is my disgust at the funeral protests helps me see the view of folks who want flag burning banning a little better. I still disagree with them, though. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/115 "2006-07-25T16:06:10Z")
[QUOTE=samclem] If you don’t understand that defending a First Amendment case is “really upholding the freedoms of everybody,” then you need to spend more time reading the Constitution. [/QUOTE] How about Second Amendment? Regards, Shodan Oh, and just to curry favor - “Sumbitch! I always thought the ACLU was Leftist. Thanks for giving me some evidence otherwise.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/116 "2006-07-25T16:09:35Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] How about Second Amendment? [/QUOTE] If the First Amendment said, “A well regulated press, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and maintain newspapers shall not be infringed,” I’d call for the amendment’s change. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/117 "2006-07-25T16:48:47Z")
The Second Amendment, the ACLU feels, is already well-defended by the NRA, therefore, they can concentrate on other areas. Another thing to consider-perhaps when the ACLU DOES defend the “good guys”, they don’t get any press for it, because it’s not so big of a deal? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/118 "2006-07-25T16:54:41Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] The Second Amendment, the ACLU feels, is already well-defended by the NRA, therefore, they can concentrate on other areas. [/QUOTE] [Not exactly](http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html) > [@ACLU](#): > > “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.” --Policy #47 Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/119 "2006-07-25T17:30:36Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] If the First Amendment said, “A well regulated press, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and maintain newspapers shall not be infringed,” I’d call for the amendment’s change. Daniel [/QUOTE] It doesn’t. I think the best that can be said is that the ACLU is in favor of a certain _view_ of civil rights, and has an interest in defining that view as unquestionable. Something they share with a number of other organizations, obviously. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/120 "2006-07-25T18:09:47Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] It doesn’t. [/quote] Damn right it doesn’t, which is why your implication of hypocrisy on their part fails. > [@](#): > > I think the best that can be said is that the ACLU is in favor of a certain _view_ of civil rights, and has an interest in defining that view as unquestionable. Well, of **course** they have a certain view of civil rights. That’s philosophically inevitable, unless they were to have no view of civil rights. But they define that view as unquestionable? I see no evidence that this is true; to the contrary, my post above quotes one of their answers to one of the common questions about their view. Where do you get the idea that they think their view is unquestionable? Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739.md?page=7)