# 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:** 8
**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 26, 2006, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/141 "2006-07-26T15:01:18Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] I’d prefer to write the check to an organization where I felt that it was doing the most good. … There’s a bunch of starving people in Africa I haven’t done anything about. [/QUOTE] You’re contradicting yourself with this example. It’s a matter of common knowledge that any contribution you make in this area is almost certainly going to end up in some kleptocrat’s Swiss (or whichever country it is these days) bank account rather than contribute to any alleviation of African poverty. ---
**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 26, 2006, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/142 "2006-07-26T15:04:29Z")
[QUOTE=Enderw24] If you do nothing about the law you are saying someone’s right to say something in a public space can be eliminated. And that’s really what the outside of a cemetary is: public space. [/QUOTE] The street outside your house is (unless you live in a gated community or something) public space. If somebody sets up a drum set and an air horn there and lets fly at 4 AM, Mister Policeman will show up and put a stop to it – and properly so. ---
**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 26, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/143 "2006-07-26T15:07:53Z")
[QUOTE=Excalibre] There are real threats to free speech out there - permitted zones to protest the president’s actions are a great example. [/QUOTE] However, a narrowly tailored **exlcusion** zone, sufficient to insure that people who for some reason actually want to listen to the President’s blatherings are able to do so, would be perfectly acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/144 "2006-07-26T15:21:05Z")
[QUOTE=Valteron] The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it **subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.** \*\* (emphasis mine). [/quote] Not to harp about this (though I tend to do that sometimes :)), but the history of U.S. constitutional law actually brings the literal text of the Constitution in line with what this quote from the Charter suggests. Free speech is not treated as absolute, but laws limiting it are only acceptable if they pass certain tests - the rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc. The Supreme Court decisions that created those terms set particular tests - for instance, a law subject to strict scrutiny (such as one that prohibits speech based on its content) must (1) serve a **compelling governmental interest** (which is things like national security and saving lives - it’s a high standard), it must be (2) **narrowly tailored** , so it doesn’t restrict things that don’t need to be restricted to serve that compelling governmental interest, nor can it fail to address aspects of the issue, and it must be (3) the **least restrictive means** possible to achieve the desired end (I’m not quite sure why (3) is treated as different than (2). Maybe they just wanted to emphasize that point.) I’m sort of rambling here, but my point is that even if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly state limits on these rights, they’re not absolute and they’ve never been treated as such. The U.S. Constitution is a _really_ short document. You can read the whole thing over a lunch break, it’s seriously pamphlet-esque. Contrast that with the E.U. Constitution, which is a pretty thick book. The trouble is not so much with the U.S. Constitution but rather with people who don’t really understand its meaning - as, for instance, with people who go around clamoring about free speech when certain topics on a message board are censored. Hint hint. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/145 "2006-07-26T20:27:00Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Actually, I overreached here; sorry. Some folks certainly claim that their refusal to endorse a particular reading of the second amendment points to hypocrisy, but you may not have been making that implication. If you weren’t, I apologize. Daniel [/QUOTE] No problem, mostly because I didn’t know what you were talking about at all. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/146 "2006-07-27T00:25:32Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] I would say that the funeral is analogous to many other functions, such as a concert in the park. One does not have the right to disrupt the performance. [/quote] You wouldn’t happen to have a cite for that, do you? Not that I don’t believe you, I’d just like to see the specific wording. > [@](#): > > His actions do disrupt and interfere with the funeral and the attendees right to attend a peaceful ceremony. They shout and chant and protest in such a fashion that they disrupt the ceremony and the attendees’ appreciation of it. What part of the Constitution guarantees a right to a “peaceful ceremony?” > [@](#): > > I’d prefer to write the check to an organization where I felt that it was doing the most good. For me, that’s therapeutic riding, and the burn center of a children’s hospital. I’ve donated a horse and done some volunteer work, and to me there’s no moral ambiguities about a burned kid in pain and no moral ambiguities about putting a kid in a wheelchair on top of a horse and taking him for a ride. Isn’t the wheelchair a little uncomfortable for the horse? > [@](#): > > There’s a bunch of starving people in Africa I haven’t done anything about. There’s a whole bunch of poor people on death row. There’s entire neighborhoods and ghettos with schools of such poor quality that the children born into the communities have zero opportunity of getting the education that are tax dollars are supposed to guarrantee them. Aids and cancer need a cure. I don’t see any moral ambiguities in supporting the ACLU. When you feed the hungry, some of the people you feed are going to be thieves, or murderers, or rapists. Cancer and AIDS afflict the saints and the assholes alike. This fact does not make the goal of curing disease or ending hunger moral ambiguous. No one deserves to starve. Everyone deserves the right to speak his mind. > [@](#): > > There is a company by the name of Northfield Laboratories. They designed a blood substitute. A few years back they started testing this on heart transplantees and those people had a high level of heart attacks compared to the control group of transplantees that didn’t get the substitute. > > It turns out that Northfield didn’t figure that most transplantees were white, and wealthy and would sue. > > Now they are ready to test again. What they’ve done is a “negative consent” in certain poor ghetto neighborhoods near Duke medical center. They can test their new formulation on trauma victims without informing them or gaining their consent and even when they get them to the hospital they can deny them regular blood for 24 hours and keep them on the blood substitute. > > They are poor and black and not likely to have the resources to understand or protest or sue if there is a bad outcome. > > The only way to opt out is to attend a poorly advertised meeting or make a trip to the hospital, get a special opt out bracelet and where it 24/7. That’s extraoridinaly fucked up. It certainly sounds like the sort of thing the ACLU should be involved in. How long has it been since the story broke? > [@](#): > > Once we get this shit fixed I’ll worry about Phelps and consider sending the ACLU check. Tell you what. You worry about giving horse rides to sick kids. I’ll worry about the first ammendment. I won’t slag your cause if you don’t slag mine. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/147 "2006-07-27T01:41:49Z")
[QUOTE=Enderw24] Not true. His protests do, or should, fall under the category of political speech. He’s protesting the war in Iraq. He’s claiming that God is smiting soldiers because there are homosexuals in the army…or America…or, well someplace, and he’s mightily perturbed. I’m not really claiming to understand the logic behind this man. I have no earthly clue how he’s arrived at his conclusions other than multiple concussions but what he’s saying MUST be protected under the First Amendment. Indeed, political speech is usually afforded the highest levels of protection we give to speech. [/quote] Actually, he’s witnessing against homosexuality. It’s religion not politics. And I agree with his right to do it. I just don’t think he can do it in a way that interferes or detracts from other people’s expression of their rights, such as to mourn and attend a funeral. Clearly, these “demonstrations” are disrupting the funerals. He doesn’t have the right to do this any more than I have the right to stand outside a concert hall blowing off an airhorn. > [@](#): > > So if the speech is protected, should we give him free reign? No. As I’ve said before, it’s a balancing act. Like all things in the law, we must weigh the interests of both sides and ultimately arrive at a compromise in the middle. Mr. Phelps’ interest is to disrupt the funeral for publicity and controversy. He doesn’t have the right to do that that I can see. > [@](#): > > I would never support the physical interference of a funeral. I also don’t believe protestors should be allowed on the funeral grounds itself if the owner of said property disagrees with it. > But look at the opposite stance. The law as it stands makes the entire point of a protest irrelevant. No one will hear what you have to say an hour before or an hour after. If you do nothing about the law you are saying someone’s right to say something in a public space can be eliminated. And that’s really what the outside of a cemetary is: public space. If nobody is interested in it an hour before the funeral or an hour after than that demonstrates my point that the purpose of the protest is to disrupt the funeral. Without the disruption it has no interest or value. Therefore, it is not free speech, it is simply a disturbance. I can support this by the fact that you mention you’re not really clear on what Phelps’ actual message is or what his reasoning is. This is because he doesn’t actually have a message other than the disruption for the disruption’s sake. If you’re one of the guys deciding whether the NAACP should protect this or not, you would think that if anybody discerned his message it would be you. > [@](#): > > Let’s move further away from a funeral. The town square is a public place. All around it are shops going about their business and people moving to and fro. None of them particularly want to listen to a protest today. Can we enact banning protests in the town square? Are the rights of the businesses and townsfolk more important than the rights of the protestors? If you answer yes, then I must ask: where CAN we hold a protest where no one would…ahem…protest? I recognize that some protests may be annoying and inconvenient to some and that we have to put up with them in order to protect our own rights. In this circumstance I think the test is that Phelps “protest” doesn’t work unless it disrupts the funeral. That is its purpose. It’s not protected speech if it’s dependant upon disrupting someone else in the expression of their civil rights. For example, I can protest the Iraq war in front of an army base, or in a town square or in any number of venues. My message is my message and it is not dependant upon effecting another protected activity. Clearly, I am generating the message in this instance and it is speech, it is political and it must be protected. Phelps however does not have a message or rationale that you have been able to discern. His expression doesn’t work in other venues. If he just does it in the town square disconnected from a funeral it doesn’t work. It’s primarily religious, not political. It must coincide with be proximate to and disrupt another protected expression in order for his expression to be satisfactory. I think this is a reasonable test and Phelps clearly fails it. His message is therefore demonstrably the disruption. Simple disruption for its own sake should not be protected. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/148 "2006-07-27T01:49:12Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] You wouldn’t happen to have a cite for that, do you? Not that I don’t believe you, I’d just like to see the specific wording. [/quote] I’m sorry, I don’t. I’m just aware that one is not allowed to disturb the peace or dirsrupt an event for it’s own sake. > [@](#): > > What part of the Constitution guarantees a right to a “peaceful ceremony?” The same part that protects the Ku Klux Klan from having their asses kicked every time they gather. > [@](#): > > Isn’t the wheelchair a little uncomfortable for the horse? We take the kid out of the wheelchair. We have special saddles that we can strap the kids into who are not able to maintain themselves in the saddle. Great effort is gone through to select and train horses that will put up with a lot. > [@](#): > > That’s extraoridinaly fucked up. It certainly sounds like the sort of thing the ACLU should be involved in. How long has it been since the story broke? I dunno. Six months? > [@](#): > > Tell you what. You worry about giving horse rides to sick kids. I’ll worry about the first ammendment. I won’t slag your cause if you don’t slag mine. Well, you are slagging a cause of mine. The ACLU is assisting Phelps to disrupt the free expression of religion and create a public disturbance. I am interested in peace and the free expression of religion. To say that Phelps has the right to disrupt a funeral is to put his expression of religion above those at the funeral. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/149 "2006-07-27T02:19:04Z")
I guess this one is getting more complicated that I envisioned. There is since May a Federal Law which regulates, in slightly different language, these protests. New Jersey is passing one right now. Other states have passed them too. > [@](#): > > The bill(in NJ–sc) approved by the Legislature would prohibit protests within 500 feet of, and an hour before and after, funerals. > > While the bill addresses all funerals, it was crafted with the loved ones of the military in mind. The legislation introduced is tougher than the federal restrictions, which prohibit protests within 150 feet and 60 minutes of a military service on federal government property. From [http://newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2006/0726/Front\_Page/071.html](http://newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2006/0726/Front_Page/071.html) This one isn’t as clear cut as it seems. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/150 "2006-07-27T02:22:56Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] I’m sorry, I don’t. I’m just aware that one is not allowed to disturb the peace or dirsrupt an event for it’s own sake. [/quote] A disruption “for it’s own sake,” maybe, but I’m sure there must be some provision to handle legitimate protest. > [@](#): > > The same part that protects the Ku Klux Klan from having their asses kicked every time they gather. No, sorry, but it doesn’t. The same part of the Constitution that allows the KKK to hold rallies also allows other groups to stage counter-protests at the same time, where they can scream and carry on and do all the stuff Phelps is doing. > [@](#): > > Well, you are slagging a cause of mine. The ACLU is assisting Phelps to disrupt the free expression of religion and create a public disturbance. I am interested in peace and the free expression of religion. To say that Phelps has the right to disrupt a funeral is to put his expression of religion above those at the funeral. No, it puts his expression of religion _on the same level_ as those at the funeral, which is where it should be. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/151 "2006-07-27T02:44:43Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] No, it puts his expression of religion _on the same level_ as those at the funeral, which is where it should be. [/QUOTE] No. It would not be making them equal. If the one expression is dependant upon harassing another expression than we are putting the harasser’s rights above those of the harrassee’s by allowing the harassment to continue. Do you disagree? If you do, then consider this: Does one have the right of free speech to sexually proposition small children in explicit terms in public? Wisely, we consider this to be sexual harassment and not protected speech. Harassment in general is not protected. Because Phelps’s protests do not stand on their own but are dependant upon creating a disruption in others they are not protected speech but simply constitute harassment, no matter how he may attempt to camouflage them as “protest.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/152 "2006-07-27T02:56:54Z")
Except that you have to presume that intent. It is entirely clear to you what their intentions are, you have no qualm about reading their collective mind and reporting on its content. Ain’t necessarily so. They are entirely within their rights to insist that their motive is public advocacy and you are powerless to prove otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/153 "2006-07-27T03:17:01Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] No. It would not be making them equal. If the one expression is dependant upon harassing another expression than we are putting the harasser’s rights above those of the harrassee’s by allowing the harassment to continue. Do you disagree? [/quote] Yes, entirely. > [@](#): > > If you do, then consider this: Does one have the right of free speech to sexually proposition small children in explicit terms in public? > > Wisely, we consider this to be sexual harassment and not protected speech. Which in no way relates to the first part of your post. It is illegal to proposition a small child in public (or a fat child in private, for that matter) because sexual predation of minors causes severe mental, and sometimes physical, damage to the victim. Phelps’ protests present no such danger to the mourners, and so should not be restricted by the government. > [@](#): > > Harassment in general is not protected. Because Phelps’s protests do not stand on their own but are dependant upon creating a disruption in others they are not protected speech but simply constitute harassment, no matter how he may attempt to camouflage them as “protest.” Aren’t protests by definition dependent on creating a disruption in others? How do you tell the difference between a “real” protest and one that’s just camouflage? Okay, here’s one last argument for allowing Phelps to protest: the more military funerals Phelps protests, the greater the chances are of some angry vet giving him the beatdown he so desperatly needs. Who out there can’t get behind that logic, huh? C’mon! ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/154 "2006-07-27T03:46:55Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Except that you have to presume that intent. It is entirely clear to you what their intentions are, you have no qualm about reading their collective mind and reporting on its content. Ain’t necessarily so. They are entirely within their rights to insist that their motive is public advocacy and you are powerless to prove otherwise. [/QUOTE] I’m not presuming. They specifically wish to protest at funerals. If there is no funeral than they don’t wish to protest. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/155 "2006-07-27T03:53:41Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Which in no way relates to the first part of your post. It is illegal to proposition a small child in public (or a fat child in private, for that matter) because sexual predation of minors causes severe mental, and sometimes physical, damage to the victim. Phelps’ protests present no such danger to the mourners, and so should not be restricted by the government. [quote] Harassment does indeed have deleterious psychological effects on adults. > [@](#): > > Aren’t protests by definition dependent on creating a disruption in others? How do you tell the difference between a “real” protest and one that’s just camouflage? I’m not aware of a protest requiring a disruption by definition. I can protest the war by standing on a corner with a sign and not disturb the war or anybody. I can simply get my message out. Disruption or interference is not a prerequisite of protest. > [@](#): > > Okay, here’s one last argument for allowing Phelps to protest: the more military funerals Phelps protests, the greater the chances are of some angry vet giving him the beatdown he so desperatly needs. Who out there can’t get behind that logic, huh? C’mon! I don’t support violence against Phelps, and the idea of some mourning father being so disturbed by Phelps that he feels compelled to violence is not a comforting or positive image. I would seriously feel bad for the guy that he was not able to attend his child’s funeral in peace without being harassed, and I would be ashamed that my country allowed him to be harassed in this manner. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/156 "2006-07-27T04:01:09Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] I’m not presuming. They specifically wish to protest at funerals. If there is no funeral than they don’t wish to protest. [/QUOTE] Not entirely. They protest at _military_ funerals. Their _declared_ intent is to protest the presence of homosexuals in our services. Twisted and repulsive as it is, it is nonetheless a petition for the redress of percieved grievance, addressed to the public to impact government. Don’t get more political than that. It may be your perception that thier entire purpose is disruption, but that is subjective. With all due awe, you could be wrong. ---
**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 27, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/157 "2006-07-27T04:23:03Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Not entirely. They protest at _military_ funerals. [/QUOTE] Or they protest at _funerals_. If the “military” aspect is the reason, why not protest outside military camps and bases? Or The Mall? Or on Capitol Hill? Contrary to popular opinion, of course I defend free speech. But when that speech is exponentially more damaging to the public than serving the purpose of such a miniscule few that only say it to serve themselves/profit/hurt others, there has to be a limit. Now I’m curious. And this is a serious question. Why aren’t “hate speech” laws applicable here? Does actual violence need to happen for a hate crime to be commited? Is harrassment applicable to hate crime law? I honestly don’t know the requirement for the law to be applicable. Also, and this may be a GD in itself, but how close are we to a legitimate case where the ACLU would actually have to defend Phelps, while also representing a complaint lodged by a gay rights group? How would that work? Or would it be a conflict of interest thing that somehow couldn’t happen? (Just saving everyone from a GD thread.) ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/158 "2006-07-27T04:38:32Z")
[QUOTE=duffer] Contrary to popular opinion, of course I defend free speech. But when that speech is exponentially more damaging to the public than serving the purpose of such a miniscule few that only say it to serve themselves/profit/hurt others, there has to be a limit. [/quote] And contrary to the implications of what **Miller** and **Linty Fresh** are saying, such limits are _routinely_ recognized in law. I don’t think this is a particularly simple issue, either from a legal perspective or a moral one. And I don’t think the issue is illuminated by arguments from a free speech absolutist perspective. Especially not the dumbass Constitutional arguments that people have been putting forth. > [@](#): > > Now I’m curious. And this is a serious question. Why aren’t “hate speech” laws applicable here? Does actual violence need to happen for a hate crime to be commited? Is harrassment applicable to hate crime law? I honestly don’t know the requirement for the law to be applicable. I don’t know that many jurisdictions have laws against hate speech. Banning hate speech would be a perfect example of a content-based restriction on free speech, and it’s really hard to imagine a hate speech law passing constitutional muster. Hate crime laws have been used to prosecute some forms of speech, I believe, but I imagine such prosecutions are extremely difficult. ---
**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 27, 2006, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/159 "2006-07-27T05:16:52Z")
[QUOTE=Excalibre] I don’t think this is a particularly simple issue, either from a legal perspective or a moral one. [/QUOTE] (Very little of the following is directed to the quote, I got on a bit of a roll.) You’re right. Most issues aren’t. In this thread I’ve seen a pseudo-defense of NAMBLA. While it disgusts me, I realize a miniscule portion of us has any actual pwer/influence over a lot of these matters. Most of us post opnions/rants about things that piss us off. Agree with some, disagree with some, it’s a place to post our thoughts. God forbid anyone ask me to represent them in something I care about. I’d have to seriously rethink my opinion. I have no power, nor have I any influence in any of these matters. I post opnions and feelings and thoughts. It’s about as benign as a dog barking in the alley. Though I don’t even have the option of biting anyone. Just to clarify above posts in this thread. It was opinion, we’re not arguing a court case. (And to save the obligatory keystrokes to say “What the hell are you talking about?” let it go if you don’t get it.) ---
**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 27, 2006, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739/160 "2006-07-27T12:14:14Z")
[QUOTE=duffer] You’re right. Most issues aren’t. In this thread I’ve seen a pseudo-defense of NAMBLA. [/QUOTE] **duffer** , earlier I asked you a question: what do you think should be the legal penalty for saying, “I believe that a sixty-year-old-man should legally be able to have sex with a twelve-year-old boy”? I’m still interested in you answer. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-fights-for-anti-gay-phelps-clan/365739.md?page=9)