On an ACLU discussion group I belong to, I was made aware of this news item today: Phelps Kin Charged With Child Abuse Over Anti-Gay Military Funeral Demo (www.365gay.com)
Shirley Phelps-Roper, daugher of Fred Phelps who is the head of the Topeka Westboro Baptist Church (GodHatesFags.com), was arrested last month in Bellevue, Nebraska and charged with:
[ol][li]negligent child abuse[/li][li]contributing to the delinquency of a minor[/li][li]flag mutilation and disturbing the peace over an anti-gay protest at the funeral of a soldier last month.[/ol][/li]For those unfamiliar with the Westboro Baptist Church, they are a tiny congregation (mostly the Phelps family) who are vehemently homophobic and blame the US government for being too lenient towards gays.
A 1977 Nebraska law prohibits trampling a flag. The adults did not step on the flag, but a 10-year-old child did. The police claim that the adults “knew it was a violation of the law. But they allowed the children to go ahead.”
Penalty for conviction: $500 fine, up to 3 months in jail.
Shirley Phelps-Roper is asking the Nebraska chapter of the ACLU to represent her. The ACLU has not decided yet.
I think the ACLU should represent Sidney Phelps-Roper, and that the Nebraska law is unjust. Furthermore, I don’t see how negligent child abuse can be inferred if the only justification for the accusation is allowing (or encouraging?) the child to step on a US flag. But before stating my opinion on the ACLU list, I would be interested in hearing the opinions of my fellow Dopers. Since I am by far not an expert on constitutional issues, I could be swayed.
God I hate to say it, but yes. No human being should ever be forced to bear unwilling allegiance to a frigging rag, no matter what significance someone may attach to it. Yes, I realize it symbolizes this and that and everything holy — but freedom and rights are for people, not for flags.
Yes, the ACLU should represent them. The whole case is bullshit. The Nebraska “flag-trampling” law is patently unconstitutional and the child abuse charge is laughable. It’s a transparently political prosecution regardless of how anybody feels about the Phelps clan.
Has that law ever been challenged? How long has it been in place? It’s a ridiculous, unjust law and the ACLU should definitely defend her. I have a problem with her coercing a child into demonstration, but that’s another issue.
You’d think they’d be smart enough to not play into the Phelps clan’s game. :rolleyes:
Given that the flag trampling law is probably unconsitutional and certainly stupid and given that the “child abuse” charges are nothing more than a way to pile additional complaints on Phelps’s daughter with no evidence of genuine abuse, (she did not tell the kid to beat a crippled vet with a bat on the grounds that the child’s sentence would be less), then the ACLU should hold its nose and take the case, just as they did for the Nazis in Illinois thirty-odd years ago.
The ACLU should defend the son from whatever charges are leveled against him for breaking the flag law. The ACLU can also defend the mother from any flag law / disturbing the peace charges, insofar as they may infringe on her free speech rights.
However, I say the ACLU should have no part in defending her against child abuse or delinquency of a minor charges. If you intend to defy the law in protest, it shouldn’t be young children committing the crimes, instead of the adults. Children that age do not exist to be your tools of protest. You should not be encouraging them to commit crimes for you, so that their youthful innocence can shield you from the law, no matter how stupid that law may be.
I agree. Flag desecration, while disgusting, is a constitutionally protected form of free speech. Shirley Phelps-Roper, while disgusting, is as entitled to her constitutional rights as a citizen who doesn’t make people want to puke at the mere mention of her name. The ACLU has defended the rights of people worse than Shirley, and I see no reason why they should refuse her.
Slight hijack: Does this strike any other WBC-watcher as unusual? I thought the Phelps gang represented themselves in court. Hell, they’ve unleashed as much vitriol at the ACLU as they have at homosexuals, and now they’re going hat in hand to them? What does that say about the family’s resources?
I don’t know if the ACLU always defends people pro bono, but if they do defend Ms. Phelps-Roper I sure hope they only do it under the condition that she pay the legal fees.
Kalhoun: the linked article says the Nebraska law against flag trampling dates from 1977.
It seems to me that the officer made a (perhaps insupportable) judgment call. Unless someone has evidence or testimony that the Phelps clan kept going out of their way to avoid walking on the flag, as opposed to it being a matter of the kid off to one side doing his own thing, I am not sure that their simple act of not happening to step on the flag indicates a direct and deliberate effort to have the child stomp the flag while they did not. (In addition, while I know the old bromide “ignornce of the law is no excuse,” I am not sure that they would have explicitly known the trampling the flag was a crime. I have no idea whether Ohio or Michigan have laws that prohibit particular actions against the flag (having no interest in doing anything to harm the flag I have no interest in knowing how far I can go.))
It certainly sounds like child abuse in that article. She willingly brought her 10 year old son into a situation that could easily escalate to violence.
She is also a lawyer (according to the article) and expressed her own opinion that the nebraska law is a joke so let her defend herself.
I agree that the ACLU’s principles require them to oppose the Nebraska anti-flag-trampling law. However, it should be recalled that ACLU affiliates usually don’t have the luxury of taking every single case that they’re asked to take, so they have to set priorities:
IMO, the ACLU has already demonstrated its devotion to principle by siding with Phelps-Roper in the Missouri case. There is no reason that this loathsome cumsack or her disgusting family should automatically expect the ACLU to provide free legal assistance and publicity every time they deliberately land themselves in trouble with the law, even if the law in question is repressive and unconstitutional.
I would support the Nebraska ACLU affiliate if they chose to represent Phelps-Roper in this case, but I wouldn’t be outraged if they decided it wasn’t the best use of their limited time and resources.
That would be a violation of their policy. The legal work done by the ACLU in civil liberties cases is always supported by the institution’s own funds.
People put their children in “potentially” dangerous situations every minute of every day. This situation is much less likely to put the child in harm’s way than putting him in a car would be.
Also, I’d like to see where being a scofflaw prevents the ACLU from defending a person. In fact, I thought it was precisely that kind of behavior that has brought the ACLU to peoples’ aid time and time again.
That, however, does not appear to be the action with which she is charged. The child abuse and neglect complaints are tied directly to her declining to prevent, (or, perhaps, encouraging) her child to commit a crime.
Since I do not recall any recent incident in which a person suffered an injury during the Phelps’s protests, (the police usually work pretty hard to protet them), the risk to her child does not appear to have been great.
An interesting point. These guys used to defend themselves in court. In fact, they’ve routinely vilified the ACLU in their fliers. Now Phelps-Roper is actually asking the ACLU to defend her.
My hope–and I realize that it’s a long shot–is that we’re finally witnessing the first chinks in the Phelps’ armor. About a year ago in a similar thread, I opined that picketing military funeral’s was a huge mistake for an organization as small as the WBC. As long as they stuck to the funerals of homosexuals and small business owners, they were safe, because these people are more vulnerable to attacks and insults. Less able to fight back or even defend themselves.
When they took on the military, they pretty much declared war against America and the mass media. It has been a very hard couple of years for the WBC. If you check out the British documentary The Most Hated Family in America, the family members are showing the strain. Even Fred Phelps, never one to shy away from the camera, is hostile and unwilling to talk. Everyone’s defensive. Everyone has that bunker mentality. They wanted attention? Well, they’ve got it, now. I’m hoping that they’ve finally bitten off more than they can chew, and this is a sign of them starting to choke on it.