No, you haven’t, and I wonder if your inability to make such distinctions is responsible for your generally absurd political views.
Cite for the specific mental or physical damage suffered by a mourner at a funeral protested by Fred Phelps?
You’ve seen nothing of the kind.
Lurking behind all this is the issue of reverence. These are military funerals, for fallen soldiers. Which is, I assume, why the Phelpstain choose that venue for maximum impact. You’re a treehugger, you chain yourself to a tree and call a press conference. You’re a failed businessman and execution enthusiast, you park yourself in front of a military audience and bask in reflected glory. Oldest trick in the book, you can’t change their minds unless you can get their attention.
We are offended by the irreverence, more than anything else. Trouble with that is, if we start crafting legislation to prevent overt irreverence, we could quickly slide downhill toward zones that protect failed leaders from public ridicule, because, after all, the Leader deserves respect regardless of what a shitwit we think he is.
And that would be bad.
Just wanted to bump this thread because I promised I’d go talk with the ED of the ACLU and report back. I went in to see him on Thursday. I’m not going to report directly what he said, but he did confirme a few things and clarify a few others.
First off, what I suspected had happened did. We, being the ACLU of E. KS/W. MO, didn’t file the lawsuit. The ACLU of E. MO, or the St. Louis branch, did. This makes absolutely no real difference in the grand scheme of things. Both legal panels still debated the issues of the case but we passed it over to them if they were willing to take on the case. They were so they did.
Second, I have the actual lawsuit on my desk right now. It’s twenty pages long and was filed on July 21st in the Western district of Missouri, Central division.
I only got a brief chance to read it this weekend and so I’m not all the way through. I wanted to point out a few things to you from it.
First, the ACLU is suing based upon an infringment of both our 1st and 14th Amendment rights, specifically the rights of individual speech, religious liberty, and assembly rights.
Second, here is an argument from page 3 of the complaint:
“The purpose of picketing and protesting near funerals is to use an available public platform to publish plaintiff § and other church members’ religious message: that God’s promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God’s wrath and hell for those who do not. The funerals of soldiers, in P’s view, have become and internationally watched platform where the question of whether God is cursing or blessing America is being discussed. P and her church believe the scriptures teach that an individual who dies on the battlefield for a nation that is at enmity with God cannot go to heaven and, dispite the views of public figures, is not a hero. For this reason it is impreative to P’s faith that the contradictory message from public figures be balanced with scriptural message at the time it is being uttered. Further, P and other church members believe that funerals, burials, and memorial services are times when the eyes, ears and hearts of mankind are attending to matters of eternity. P and her church believe it is too late for the dead but not for the living. …for these reasons this public platform is the only place where this religious message can and must be delivered in a timely and relevant manner to those attending the funeral and to those participating in the public events and displays outside the funeral.”
I don’t need to add the usual caveat on how I or the ACLU actually feel about the Westboro philosophy here. But I wanted to lay this point out for you because it helps clarify
- why P believes this to infringe upon her Constitutional rights, that it is religious speech and it is political speech
- Why these protests must take place at the time of a funeral and not an hour before or after. Also while they must take place as close as can be allowed to the actual funeral itself.
If I find other relevant or interesting parts of the complaint as I finish reading through it, I’ll be sure to share them.
That’s not true- the Phelps clan does protest other venues.
Protesting a production of The Laramie Project
Protesting pro-gay churches
Protesting at a military hospital
Protesting an Episcopalian convention
Other than that, I’ll let Miller, elucidator, and Enderw24 make their arguements for me- I’m leaning in their favor.
Sorry for reviving this thread after my absence. I was busy with schoolwork, and let me state for the record that as much as I happen to loathe Internet cookies, I probably don’t hate them as much as the poor bastard who has to program them for a living.
I would love a citation for this.
Well pardon me and the ACLU for thinking that rat bastards have the same constitutional rights as anyone else.
You do make a couple of good points earlier in this thread, namely that of speech being regulated by such things as noise ordinances and the like, and you even give me this handy dandy little link. Actually, why don’t you go back and read that link once more, and this time, pay attention to the words “content neutral”. They’re important words.
See, in America, you can enact a noise ordinance so that people can’t demonstrate at 2 AM in the park. However, if it turns out that the police are only arresting war protestors there and leaving the Pro-war folks alone, that’s a problem.
Similarly, if you’re going to enact a law stating that people can’t disrupt a funeral, you have to include all demonstrations, pro- and anti-military, not just protests. Otherwise, you’re censoring for content, and the Phelpses are going to take you to court–and they’ll probably win on this one. Your own link pretty much screws your whole argument up, Excalibre. I’m quite sure you could pass a law like this. The question is could you enforce it?
Maybe I should be the one muttering about dumbass arguments for restrictions of free speech that people are putting forth in this thread.
It goes back to the examples I’ve been citing all along. If you’re not going to read my posts for comprehension, then discussion here is hopeless even aside from your lamentable ignorance of the Constitution.
Excuse me? I said absolutely nothing to suggest that I think bad people don’t deserve Constitutional rights. That’s a patently ridiculous and altogether offensive interpretation of what I’ve been saying in this discussion.
Right. Which is why, in my first post in this discussion, I asked if anyone could cite legal definitions or precedent for the difference between a “content-based” and a “content-neutral” law. Remember? Back before you knew what those words meant?
I haven’t read the text of the law - obviously, I don’t think any sort of demonstration should be permitted at a funeral. If they’re prohibiting some demonstrations and not others, that’s quite obviously content-based, and it’s hard to imagine such a law passing strict scrutiny.
I can’t see how, and you certainly haven’t proven it. Sorry, kiddo. Back to the books for you.
Not until you actually demonstrate that my argument is wrong, you shouldn’t. You haven’t even come close to doing so.
So tell me - what’s the Constitutional basis for laws that prohibit protests outside of private homes? Because the Court has upheld such bans - which means that clearly, a law banning demonstrations can be content-neutral (since, again, as far as I can tell I don’t think such a law could pass strict scrutiny.)
Look, dude, I’m glad you’ve done some reading. Next time, though, read my posts if you want to argue with them. I hope this has been educational for you, since it’s obviously a subject you have not had any education on in the past. Meanwhile, I’ve done my part by demonstrating how stunningly ignorant you are of free speech laws; I’m hoping this little education sticks. But since your argument now seems to boil down to making offensive assertions that I don’t care about free speech and ignoring all the points I’ve made, I think it’s pretty clear that there’s no value for me in continuing to discuss this with you.
Aww, quitcher bitchin’ and get off your high horse. I’ve read just as much as you, and anyway, you’re the one who started out by saying that there’s no way either of us could know because we’re not lawyers. Then when I called you on that, you came out with shit like noise ordinances and the like–never mind that I mentioned those types of things first.
You think you can enforce a content-neutral law at a military funeral? You think you can ban all types of demonstrations, including pro-military? Good fucking luck! It’s going to be impossible to stop people from demonstrating their love of the military, and it should be impossible for them to do so. The thing is that if you allow those pro-military demonstrations, you have to allow for anti-military demonstrations or noise ordinances and the like just don’t apply. You can’t expect that sort of thing to be content neutral. It’s simply impossible. And if someone does try to ban one and not the other, the Phelpses will take them to court, and they will win in court, and that poor loser will wind up financing the WBC for the next two years or so, simply because he tried to do what he thought was the right thing.
So debate me or not, Excalibre, but content neutral bans just ain’t gonna fly here.
That’s not what I said at all. I’ve let this ridiculous strawman pass several times, but it’s a complete load of bullshit. Given the absolute garbage you’ve spouted about me, you are either too dishonest or too stupid to have a rational discussion about this. Your only weapon in this argument so far has been fallacious summaries of what I’ve said. That does not make for a useful debate.
What in the world are you talking about? Does the above even make sense to you?
Um, what? Are you suggesting that someone could sue the legislature and extract money for passing an unconstitutional law? Cite? Jesus fuck, are you serious or is this some sort of joke I’m not getting? It’s hard for me to imagine anyone trying to argue this point and being so ridiculously ignorant about it, but I can’t see why you’d be pretending either.
Because of what exactly?
Look, kid, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. All you’ve done to address my points is offer completely erroneous summations of my posts and ignorant sloganeering. I’m glad you’ve done some reading about the subject. Now I’m done with my bit of charity here. You’re obviously still unable to come up with any sort of cogent argument here - the closest you’ve come is a slippery slope argument, which shows how poor your reasoning is. It’s obviously not worth my time any further. Discussion of complex topics is stimulating and good for the mind. Discussion of complex topics with morons is neither.
Wow, nice debating technique. What do you call it, Spitting on the Keyboard?
Sorry. It was you who said this, right?
And, by chance, did you let loose with this little gem?
So much for content neutrality. So much for strawmen.
It makes a lot of sense to me. If people line up at a military funeral and shout “USA, USA” that’s a demonstration. If people line up at a military funeral with American flags and signs that say “God bless the military”, that’s a demonstration, too. The WBC knows this. They are ready to deal with it. They also know that there’s no practical way for people to stop doing this.
No, but they can sue the city. In fact they have sued the city. In fact, they’ve won.. Check out “Westboro Baptist Church: Encyclopedia II - Westboro Baptist Church - Activities and statements” Or if you want to, you can read the WBC’s version of it and view the actual checks. You want to know how I know this? Because I read, genius!
Oh, and by the way, if you think that Phelps and co. are ignorant of these legalities, think again! Check out pages four and five for what they plan to do to enforce content neutrality.
Curse and scream all you want, but if you think this law is going to hold up to a bunch of lawyers who happen to be both very knowledgable about constitutional law and batshit insane, not to mention evil, then you’re the one being a moron, not me.
And yet, shockingly, neither of those things says what you’re claiming I said!
Whoops!
Um, do people routinely chant slogans at the funerals you attend?
Jesus Christ, do you drink paint thinner before coming onto the forums?
And yet, somehow, magically, that case doesn’t even remotely resemble the hypothetical you offered up!
I get it. It’s not me. It’s reality’s fault for conspiring to make you a liar!
Um, they’ve used lawsuits for years as a means of harassing and attacking others. This isn’t exactly news.
It will hold up if it’s determined by a court to be constitutional. You know that thing called “judicial review”?
except that I don’t find brick walls annoying.
What hypothetical? You do realize that the WBC has vowed to fight this law in court, right? And how does that case not hold up? It’s a case overturning the exact kind of law that’s been passed now!
Garr . . . (choking on my rage) . . . That’s the fucking point you non-comprehending dipstick!! That’s one of the reasons this is such a bad fucking idea!!
Sigh . . . Let’s slow this down a little, OK? Let’s tell it in the form of a fractured fairy tale or something.
Now I want you to imagine that you’re nobility back in the day, and that the next morning, for whatever reason, you must duel to the death with the evil Count Slashy von Stabsalot. You know for a fact that Count Slashy is a master of the cutlass. Across the fair land have travelled stirring accounts of how the evil count has defeated bigger enemies in greater numbers with his cutlass. He loves his cutlass, and he practices with it every chance he gets. There are documents describing in detail about how he enjoys goring hapless rivals with this cutlass while blindfolded and writes naughty messages on various internal organs which have suddenly become distressingly external. Now further imagine that you get to choose the weapon. Would you choose:
A. A cutlass?
or
B. Something other than a cutlass?
Assuming you knew about Count Slashy’s little hobby, you’d choose B, wouldn’t you? That’s a big assumption to, as I’ll get to in a moment.
Now, imagine that you’re in the present day, faced with an obnoxious foe whose two main hobbies include picketing funerals and suing people. You want them to stop, but you also know that the team consists largely of lawyers with plenty of courtroom experience as well as plenty of court time with constitutional law. There are documents showing how they’ve won against people infringing on their civil rights, overturning anti-picketing laws, and how they have collected quite a bit of treasure in the process. You know that these guys are experts in the law, particularly when it comes to their civil rights. You know that the only reason they’ve come this far is because of that knowledge of their civil rights. They have threatened to sue anyone who screws with those civil rights, and they also have at least the tacit backing of the ACLU. Now in dealing with these people, what would you choose?
A. Making some law which could in any way be construed as fucking with their civil rights?
or
B. Pursuing other venues, none of which has anything to do with fucking with their civil rights?
Remember, now, they’ve already successfully overturned anti-picketing laws. Remember that they know more about the first amendment than both of us put together. Remember that any money they win against the city in a lawsuit is going to finance further picketing. Is this really the way to get at them?
Oh, and the way, Excalibre, one last thing: Fuck you. Fuck your ignorant ranting, fuck your tone of aggrieved oppression, and fuck your condescending posts. You were the one who walked into this discussion without a clue. You’re the one who didn’t seem to know that the Phelps gang could get money from the city by suing them, and you’re the one who doesn’t want to pull his head out of his ass and actually look at the documentation. You’re also the one who claimed not to know anything about the law and then try to back out of it when I showed you your own quote, so if there’s a lying, paint-thinner-swilling moron, it’s you.
Speaking with great conviction right out of his asshole is his specialty, Linty. Try not to let it get to you. The sad thing is that, I think, he actually believes that others should act or change opinions just on his say so.
He’s young, yet, although that is insufficient to fully explain him.