ACLU Fights For Anti-Gay Phelps Clan

The BBQ Pit
81

Where did I even remotely suggest that I was an expert? Didn’t I say I wasn’t a lawyer more than once? Didn’t I ask for specific information on this?

First amendment jurisprudence is complicated, man! Don’t you get that? Even if I knew every case to examine on Lexis-Nexis, I wouldn’t have the context to understand them. These are complex legal questions and throwing out some kneejerk slippery slope is not a legal argument, nor is it an argument that is particularly convincing on any other level.

I don’t know enough about the topic (as I’ve been saying) to make any legitimate legal argument. I do, however, know enough to recognize ridiculous oversimplification when I see it. Given the tenor of this thread, I don’t see the point in trying to debate the issue on its merits. It’s not usually worth trying to argue an unpopular point around here. Given the tone of the statements made in this thread so far, this certainly isn’t a case in which it’s worth it.

That’s why I’m hoping that people will at least have the self-awareness to stop insisting that they understand legal issues that they don’t. Assigning your opinions legal weight is nonsense. I’m still secretly holding out hope that someone with at least some knowledge of first amendment jurisprudence will speak up. Meantime, I’ll settle for people not making legal statements when they don’t know the law in question.

82

Sigh . . . First off, I wasn’t saying that you were saying you were an expert. I meant that the difference between you and me was that while we both admitted to not being experts, I was the one who at least tried to find cites and form an argument. You just kind of sit there and make non-sequitors about how no one could possibly know any of this without a law degree or something. If you’re going to be calling me out on my ignorance, you oughta have something more behind it than the fact that you’re ignorant too.

So first amendment law is complicated? Well, gosh, I’m sure glad you’re around to set me straight on that and stuff. Here I thought constitutional law was something barristers learned on the weekend over a beer and a toke. And by the way, Excalibre, just because someone cites a case doesn’t mean he’s making a legal argument in the capacity of someone who ostensibly knows the law inside and out. I’ll happily defer to a lawyer who knows about this, but I don’t see where that prevents me from at least arguing a point.

I don’t have to have a law degree to be troubled by this. This is troubling all on its own.

83

Ok. Just did. Didn’t see anything there saying The ACLU is only interested in the left.

I’m sure I must be wrong, but it seems to me that the ACLU has a strong predilection for defending the interests of the worst scum of the earth for lofty ideals.

Aren’t there some good people that need defending for lofty ideals. Can’t they do those first and get around to the Phelps’ once all the injustice against good people has been solved?

Or, are things so good that we’ve worked our way down to defending injustice and fighting for the rights of scum?

84

Good news for people who care: I just joined back on to the SDMB after letting my membership lapse for a few months. So I lost my charter membership. Alas.

I reupped specifically to weigh in on this debate. And weigh in I shall but I’m hesitant to do so. See, I’m actually on the ACLU’s legal panel here in Kansas City and helped debate the issue of bringing this lawsuit. So I’m towing a fine line here between trying to express what I want to, while simultaneously not revealing the legal panel’s specific discussions.

First off, I suggest you all look at the law yourself:

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.

I can’t find it right now, but this law has a backup clause. The legislature knew this thing was unconstitutional and built in backup plans. If this law gets struck down another law pops up in its place limiting funeral protests to 1000 feet away. If that’s struck down it goes to 500 then 300.

So if the ACLU is in agreement that the law sucks (a legal term) and the legislature’s a bit shady (again, legal term, this one from the latin Slimshadius) what’s to debate? You guessed it, Phelps.

If we believe the law is unconstitutional, we can’t just up and sue the government. We needed to find someone with standing. Standing is a legal term meaning the right to file a lawsuit or a petition under the circumstances. So to fight a law against funeral protestors, we needed an actual funeral protestor. In the first place, our selection is somewhat limited there. Secondly, are there ANY funeral protestors who are spouting what one would call a “nice” or “plesant” message? We take the clients as they are.

I don’t think it should be any big surprise that the ACLU seriously debated whether or not to have Phelps as a client. Phelps has thus far made no secret of his hatred of the ACLU. Why should we take up arms with a client who hates us, using valuable resources that could be spent on other projects?

Free speech is one of the most important rights we have. The need to protect it trumps even the need to “look good.” Not a single member of the legal panel wanted to protest a funeral. Not a single member of the legal panel agreed with Phelps’ choice to protest funerals. Not a single member of the legal panel believed in what Phelps was saying. Yet, in the end, we agreed his message was one worth protecting.

85

[gross oversimplification with a grain of truth]People with lofty ideals don’t need the ACLU. People with lofty ideals have advocate groups, funding, and lawyers with lofty ideals willing to work pro bono so that those lofty ideals will survive. Politicians know better than to screw with people with lofty ideals, because nothing reflects worse on a politician than fucking with the rights of a good honest man standing up for what’s right.[/gowagot]

It’s the scum of the earth who need this help, because nobody really likes scum, not even the ACLU, even though it stands up for the scum’s rights. If you’re in a democratic society and you want to fuck with the Bill of Rights, you don’t start with Farmer John who’s trying to save his land from the evil oil barons. You start with the dregs whom everyone would just love to see sodomized with an axe handle–and rightfully so. You start with the drug dealers. The flag burners. The anarchists. The criminals. The fundamentalist preachers who preach hate at funerals. People will fucking applaud you for screwing those people over.

That’s kind of the whole point of the ACLU being there.

86

I think in theory that’s a great point. I think in practice that there are still plenty of good people getting screwed who need legal help.

87

Enderw24:
You didn’t lose your charter membership, it seems. Though, when I did the same thing, I DID.

Perhaps the ACLU will look into it for me :wink:
Anyway, a question.

Don’t the people who wish to bury the soldier have a right to free speech, too. Isn’t Phelps’ protest impeding upon the rights of the people to have a perfectly lawful ceremony without being harassed or impeded?

It seems to me that you guys are saying that Phelps has a right of free speech to disrupt other people’s exercise of their right to free speech.

Phelps doesn’t have a right to walk into a performance in a state owned auditorium and disrupt whatever Opera or activity is occuring.

Why does he have the right to disrupt this activity?

88

Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted. Sweet. I think it’s because I became a Charter member when they were giving them out (when you’re a chart, you’re a chart all the way) but you missed out on that window. I still had to pay full price though.

So on to your question. You’re right. Funeral goers have, and should have, the right to mourn. But protestors have, and should have, the right to protest. I don’t think anyone is (Phelps clan included) that they have the right to stand behind the pastor or widow and start chanting. Indeed, if the graveyard is private property, management should have the right to kick out those being disruptive.

As with anything, it’s a matter of balance. Neither group’s right should necessarily trump those of the other. Abortion is a very private affair and yet we allow protests for that…just at a distance. Political rallies couldn’t even be compared to the previous two and yet we have (shudder) “free speech zones.”

Where is the point where the message can be delivered while causing the minimum amount of disruption? That’s for a court to decide.

89

Awright, waitaminnit. I need some clarification on this.

  1. I have very little respect for the ACLU. They’ve had a desolate few cases I’ve agreed with, but overall they’ll never get a direct dime from me.

  2. I hope Phelps and all his hellions die in a fire. Hope, not wish. Need to keep the standards of civility preserved here.

  3. I’ve been accused by some of being the right-wing version of Reeder.
    Where do I fall in the pre-conceived hierarchy? :confused:

90

Well, duh. But if one wants to be a drooling fucktard, they have a right to be a drooling fucktard. Correct?

91

Well . . . yeah, sure, I guess. I mean, insofar as we can’t take them to court and prosecute them for said fucktardation they have that right, but that doesn’t mean we can’t call them drooling fucktards, right?

92

Gotcha. After I posted that, and read the rest of the thread, I see we’re on the same page. My bad!

:smack:

93

No sweat :slight_smile:

94

I was around for that. Not that it actually matters.

Well, it seems to me that the whole point of Phelps’ display is to disrupt the funeral. If it wasn’t he wouldn’t need to do it at the funeral, would he? He could just have a parade, or rent a hall and protest anywhere he feels like that doesn’t interfere with the funeral. This isn’t satisfactory to him because his exercise is dependant upon creating a disruption that garners him the publicity. Let’s face it, he’s a dumbass and if he was just protesting in his Church or on his own time without disrupting a funeral nobody would give a shit enough to pass a law to stop him. He is only of interest in that he is purposefully disrupting a ceremony and the free speech and right to gather and mourn of others.

I don’t think he has this right.

I think it’s pretty obvious, and I truly can’t understand why the ACLU thinks the courts need to specifically look at this further. It seems obvious (but I’m not a legal eagle.)

Isn’t there some poor retiree having his home swiped by emminent domain for a shopping mall who could use your resources? A single mother being coerced into sex as a condition of employment? Or some other worthy cause?

What goes into the decision to redirect resources from worthy causes where liberties are being violated to defending a piece of shit who is both spewing hate and actively trying to interfere with the rights of others? Shouldn’t you be on the side of the funeral goers whose rights are being abbreviated and interfered with by Phelps?

It seems wrong to me. I know that the ACLU does a lot of really good and necessary constitutional work preserving freedoms for everybody. Some of it, some of what you do is distasteful but necessary. I see that, and I laud that.

I have a real problem backing the ACLU though because it seems to me that an awful lot of the cases they seem to take are taken because they are high profile and controversial and don’t really stand on their own merits. It almost seems to me like you seek out these counterintuitive cases from time to time in order to say “Hey look, we’ll defend anybody’s rights. We really are impartial.”

Which would be good if the case had merit and was important in it’s own right, and it was really upholding the freedoms of everybody. I think you guys did the right thing with the KKK. Now though, it seems like you’re making the opposite argument for Phelps.

C’mon, why not defend the good guys?

95

The “good guys” don’t need any, by and large. Which is rather the point with the ACLU: it is precisely those views that are most unpopular that require strict protection. It is far too easy to shrug off a principle because the complainant is repulsive. Now, that said, it isn’t entirely certain that the issue is clear in this regard, and it ought to be. And for that clarity to be wholly legitimate, it ought be decided in open court with professional representation on both sides.

Which is why it becomes necessary for the ACLU to explicitly move in favor of the unpopular, even the repugnant: because somebody has to.

I remember some years back, when I read that the ACLU was defending a group that promoted pederastry. I gibbered, I greebed, I tore my hair and performed conniption gymnastics! “Idiots! Morons! Why bother shooting yourselves in the foot when you can shove the barrel up your Nixon, pull the trigger and kinda spread yourself around! Christ Jesus, of all the…” You know the drill.

And then I wrote them a check. Because somebody has to.

96

Because the good guys quite often don’t have constitutional issues to defend.

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.

97

Once we get beyond the idea that the First Amendment exists to allow people to say thing we find deplorable, consider the very practical problems of a high principled outfit like The Civil Liberties Union in bed with the likes of Old Fred, who seem inclined to want to run the show himself. While he may be disbarred and his license to practice law revoked, Fred has run a fair number of law suits himself and certainly some of his kids who are still licensed have too. I just can’t imagine that the Phelpses are going to let the ACLU do anything, make any argument, file any motion unless Fred has vetted it first. The ACLU types are not going to put up with that sort of interference very long. Either the lawyer or the client is going to run the case. I can’t see either Phelps or the Union taking a subordinate position in this and thus I see a fairly short term representation.

I my judgement the ACLU has done the principled and proper thing in testing the statute. I just don’t think Fred can stand not to be in charge and that the ACLU insist on being in charge. There will be a parting of the ways.

98

Can we dismount the sanctimonious high horse for a moment? It’s not about First Amendment rights.

[link](http://www.laaclu.org/News/2003/Feb 14 Affirmative Action.htm)

Defending freedom of speech is a noble cause. Deciding whom has the right of freedom of speech is where the the ACLU seems to stray from it’s claimed neutrality. I’d lump Duke in with Phelps, Sharpton, Farrakhan and Riccio.

If you’re boiling this down to bare bones, they all get a say. Debates are expected, but when you’re talking about lawyers getting involved purporting to be neutral and getting politically involved on behalf of a neutral civil rights group? Seems to lose a little credibility. I don’t have the final say on this, but it seems a bit less than genuine in what they claim to be.

I can suspend disbeleif long enough to understand why the ACLU is defending Phelps and his offspring. But it seems a bit humorous to have the same people telling us how great the ACLU is for defending free speech to be the same people that are the first to tell people they disagree with to shut their mouths for saying things disagreeable.

99

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.

100

It was the first link I found from Google. I’ll obviously need to practice some Google-Zen. I’ll attempt a better showing in the near future. I expect someone like yourself to get the general overall feel of what I meant, but 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.

BTW, 'luc, how ya been? Haven’t seen you in a while.