# Should ACLU defend Phelps daughter (child abuse, flag mutilation at military funeral) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 6, 2007, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768 "2007-07-06T19:32:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/81 "2007-07-09T12:37:20Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] It’s completely relevant. Our system is designed so that everyone has a voice, whether their opinions are popular or not. If we take Phelps’ voice away, you risk the chance of squelching all voices of protest. It’s not a risk I’m willing to take, and it isn’t for you or me to decide what issues deserve a platform. [/QUOTE] Absolutely. ‘Free speech’ is not the same thing as ‘opinions the Government will allow you to have’. ---
**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 9, 2007, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/82 "2007-07-09T14:24:36Z")
No, it’s not relevant. If what I’m saying is dangerous…not just unpopular, but dangerous, I shouldn’t be allowed to say it, even if I don’t like the fact that I’m not allowed to say it. These people are preaching hatred, no less than neo-nazis or Klansmen. They’re dangerous, and they need to be stopped, and if stopping them means making what they’re saying and doing illegal, then lets do it, and to hell with their “rights”. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/83 "2007-07-09T14:39:35Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] No, it’s not relevant. If what I’m saying is dangerous…not just unpopular, but dangerous, I shouldn’t be allowed to say it, even if I don’t like the fact that I’m not allowed to say it. These people are preaching hatred, no less than neo-nazis or Klansmen. They’re dangerous, and they need to be stopped, and if stopping them means making what they’re saying and doing illegal, then lets do it, and to hell with their “rights”. [/QUOTE] That’s a dangerous and un-American mindset. That kind of thinking sounds less like democracy and more like something you’d hear out of North Korea. Everything is dangerous. Defending democracy is certainly dangerous. And worth the risk. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/84 "2007-07-09T16:00:43Z")
If Fox News doesn’t ignore this story altogether, it will ignore the Phelps’ anti-gay Christian conservatism and spin it as “ACLU defends anti-military flag desecraters”. ---
**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 9, 2007, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/85 "2007-07-09T16:13:27Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] That’s a dangerous and un-American mindset. That kind of thinking sounds less like democracy and more like something you’d hear out of North Korea. Everything is dangerous. Defending democracy is certainly dangerous. And worth the risk. [/QUOTE] You’re setting up a false dichotomy here. Either we let anyone say anything they want, no matter how hateful it is, or we’re North Korea? Look, governments, even democratic governments, place restrictions on speech all the time. In the US, you’re not allowed to say “I’m going to kill the President”. In Canada, you can’t advocate genocide. In Germany, you can’t say that the Nazi party should be brought back. All of these are restrictions on speech, but they’re seen as neccesary restrictions by the governments because that sort of speech is seen as ultimately destructive to the society. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/86 "2007-07-09T16:16:43Z")
Before taking the case, the ACLU should require Phelps-Roper to make a public statement in support of gay rights and/or repudiating their earlier anti-ACLU stance. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/87 "2007-07-09T16:19:20Z")
[QUOTE=samclem] I suggest that they are kinda a version of _Nazi-lite_. Not actively killing people, just being assholes. 🙂 [/QUOTE] Tastes great, less killing? I think the A.C.L.U. should defend them. It is why they exist and the charges are tissue paper-thin. Really, if you want to go about this legally, you need to have local laws that have some teeth that they are found guilty of. Problem is, as much as I completely revile what they are doing and what they stand for, they get to have their say with their voices just like everyone else in America. Why does that kindergarten phrase, " Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me" come to mind? And, what **Kalhoun** said. You want Un-American? That’s what you are promoting. The country has freedoms that live and breathe and embrace an awful lot of ideas and words and statements. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/88 "2007-07-09T16:20:56Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] If Fox News doesn’t ignore this story altogether, it will ignore the Phelps’ anti-gay Christian conservatism and spin it as “ACLU defends anti-military flag desecraters”. [/QUOTE] A lot of times I’ve seen the Fox headlines misrepresent them as “war protesters.” Not only is that a disingenuous way to avoid calling attention to their super-Christian, gay-bashing psychosis (a position which Fox News fans all pretty much support) and to falsely suggest an association with the anti-war movement, it’s FACTUALLY false. The Phelps’ are not protesting the war in Iraq. They SUPPORT the war in Iraq. They just support it for some very bizarre reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/89 "2007-07-09T16:23:15Z")
I think it speaks very highly about this board that people wouldn’t piss on Fred Phelps if he was on fire, but will defend his right to express himself. That’s what enlightenment _means_. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/90 "2007-07-09T16:35:52Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] You’re setting up a false dichotomy here. Either we let anyone say anything they want, no matter how hateful it is, or we’re North Korea? Look, governments, even democratic governments, place restrictions on speech all the time. In the US, you’re not allowed to say “I’m going to kill the President”. In Canada, you can’t advocate genocide. In Germany, you can’t say that the Nazi party should be brought back. All of these are restrictions on speech, but they’re seen as neccesary restrictions by the governments because that sort of speech is seen as ultimately destructive to the society. [/QUOTE] Our laws are based on principles as set forth in the constitution. People say hateful things all the time. So fuckin’ what? I’ve supported the Nazis marching on Skokie, which, if I recall correctly has (or had) the highest concentration of German jews (many rescued from concentration camps) in the nation. Freedom of speech is freedom to criticize, freedom to express your thoughts and feelings, and freedom to do so without threat of bodily harm. That’s right…if anyone physically harms a member of the Phelps clan because they don’t like what they’re saying, your tax dollars pay the police to protect them and arrest anyone who tries to harm them. Your example of saying you want to kill the president is a _threat_; _that’s_ illegal. You can, however, say, “I wish the president would just drop dead” and no one can stop you. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/91 "2007-07-09T16:43:03Z")
[QUOTE=glee] I think (as previous posters have said) that there is an important principle at stake here. **The ACLU should help anyone by upholding the Constitution.** It doesn’t matter if they are as disgusting as the Nazis, KKK or the Phelps organisation. The ACLU is **not** supporting those organisations - it is defending all Americans against unjust prosecution. [/QUOTE] Provided this is the best use of the ACLU’s limited resources at this moment in time. The Phelps should not be a priority case if the ACLU feels flag desecration has had its moment and there is nothing new here or if there are better cases to test the law simply because the ACLU and the Phelps are at odds in their opinions. ---
**Author:** ![maevetighe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecc23a/32.png) [@maevetighe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/maevetighe)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/92 "2007-07-09T16:58:30Z")
Hate speech is not protected speech, just like yelling ´fire´in a crowded theater isn´t protected…I think that limits on free speech should be few and far between, but I agree that it´s a false dichotomy to say either we can say anything we want to or we´re North Korea. When people preach hate towards gays, lesbians, queers, and transpeople, they are preaching hate and it is not protected by the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/93 "2007-07-09T17:09:52Z")
[QUOTE=maevetighe] Hate speech is not protected speech, just like yelling ´fire´in a crowded theater isn´t protected…I think that limits on free speech should be few and far between, but I agree that it´s a false dichotomy to say either we can say anything we want to or we´re North Korea. When people preach hate towards gays, lesbians, queers, and transpeople, they are preaching hate and it is not protected by the constitution. [/QUOTE] For purposes of clarification, I didn’t say “we’re” like North Korea. I said that poster’s comments sound like something that would come out of North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/94 "2007-07-09T17:12:23Z")
[QUOTE=Dangerosa] Provided this is the best use of the ACLU’s limited resources at this moment in time. The Phelps should not be a priority case if the ACLU feels flag desecration has had its moment and there is nothing new here or if there are better cases to test the law simply because the ACLU and the Phelps are at odds in their opinions. [/QUOTE] While flag desecration is an important part of the incident, there are other elements here. One is using child abuse laws against parents bringing their children to a political demonstration, and even encouraging their children to take an active part. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/95 "2007-07-09T17:18:17Z")
[QUOTE=maevetighe] Hate speech is not protected speech, just like yelling ´fire´in a crowded theater isn´t protected…I think that limits on free speech should be few and far between, but I agree that it´s a false dichotomy to say either we can say anything we want to or we´re North Korea. When people preach hate towards gays, lesbians, queers, and transpeople, they are preaching hate and it is not protected by the constitution. [/QUOTE] Here is an interesting starting point to the subject in Wiki: [Hate speech - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech) Note the section toward the end of the article that highlights some of the problems inherent in limiting speech. If you tell Phelps he can’t blather on about how much he hates fags, you’d be stepping on his right to religious expression. Food for thought. ---
**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 9, 2007, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/96 "2007-07-09T17:25:54Z")
[QUOTE=denquixote] So in other words, if someone thinks it is appropriate that their child attend a funeral they are barred from doing so because there is going to be a Phelp-Roper there protesting? [/quote] _If_ you’re going to arrest the Phelpses for bringing kids, then yes, you need to arrest the funeral attenders for bringing kids, too. I don’t think either group should be arrested, though. Both sides should be equally free to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, and if they feel their children should be included in that exercise, so be it. > [@](#): > > Regardless of whether or not the protest is legitimate or whether or not there is a right to protest in the first place, it is the protester who is providing the provocation, not the funeral attendee. In this case the outrageousness of the protest should put people on alert to the posibility of conflict, verbal and physical. To whom is that verbal and physical contact most likely to be directed, the funeral goers? I think not. I think that the most likely direction would be towards the protesters and a 10 year old is not capable of making decisions on whether or not to protest and the form that any protest should take. Immaterial. If they aren’t going to the funeral with the express purpose of starting violence, then it is unfair to charge them with endangering a child. They aren’t the ones endangering it: it is the person who attacks them who is causing the danger, and they are the ones who should be charged. > [@](#): > > You are also failing to see or ignoring the very real possibility of some outside group coming to “teach the protesters a lesson.” I don’t think anyone has any special animus toward the funeral goers but the protesters, again, not the case with the protesters. I’m not ignoring it at all: I’m saying that it is unjust to hold the protestors responsible if someone else decides to committ assault against them. Note that the Phelpses have been doing protests like this for years, and to my knowledge, they have never resulted in violence. If riots were routinely breaking out when they did this, I might see more merit in your position, but after dozens of these protests with no resultant violence, the idea that Phelps-Roper was putting her child at any particular risk by having him at the funeral simply doesn’t hold water. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/97 "2007-07-09T17:36:26Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] I’m not ignoring it at all: I’m saying that it is unjust to hold the protestors responsible if someone else decides to committ assault against them. Note that the Phelpses have been doing protests like this for years, and to my knowledge, they have never resulted in violence. If riots were routinely breaking out when they did this, I might see more merit in your position, but after dozens of these protests with no resultant violence, the idea that Phelps-Roper was putting her child at any particular risk by having him at the funeral simply doesn’t hold water. [/QUOTE] Actually, there have been violent incidents (against Phelpsians) most did not occur at funerals: > **[Westboro Baptist Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church)** > > The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American unaffiliated Primitive Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas, that was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps. Widely considered a hate group and a cult,\[nb 1\] it is well known for its public protests against gay people and for its usage of the phrases "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers". It also engages in hate speech against atheists, Jews, Muslims, transgender people, and other Christian denominations.\[nb 2\] The WBC's theology and pr... But that doesn’t mean its guaranteed to be dangerous, nor does it mean parents should exclude their children from every potentially dangerous occurrence they might run into. People don’t live that way. ---
**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 9, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/98 "2007-07-09T17:47:38Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] You’re setting up a false dichotomy here. Either we let anyone say anything they want, no matter how hateful it is, or we’re North Korea? Look, governments, even democratic governments, place restrictions on speech all the time. In the US, you’re not allowed to say “I’m going to kill the President”. In Canada, you can’t advocate genocide. In Germany, you can’t say that the Nazi party should be brought back. All of these are restrictions on speech, but they’re seen as neccesary restrictions by the governments because that sort of speech is seen as ultimately destructive to the society. [/QUOTE] Do you have a cite for anyone being imprisoned, fined, cited, or even tried for saying, “I’m going to kill the president,” absent concrete evidence that they intended follow through on their threat? Sure, it might get you investgated by the Secret Service, but there’s no actual law or ruling forbidding it, so far as I’m aware. > [@maevetighe](#): > > Hate speech is not protected speech, just like yelling ´fire´in a crowded theater isn´t protected…I think that limits on free speech should be few and far between, but I agree that it´s a false dichotomy to say either we can say anything we want to or we´re North Korea. When people preach hate towards gays, lesbians, queers, and transpeople, they are preaching hate and it is not protected by the constitution. Uh, yes, hate speech _is_ protected by the Constitution. I’m particularly amazed that you think hate speech towards gays in unconstitutional, as that particular minority has virtually no federal protections at all, and precious few on the state level. There is a good bit of distance between outlawing hate speech and living in North Korea, but limiting the expression of unpopular ideas is a step in that direction, and not one that I’d like to see our nation take. Particularly considering the number of unpopular ideas **I** like to express, including the idea that gays and lesbians deserve federal protection. If one can succesfully argue that Fred Phelps’s speech should be stifled for the protection of society at large, one can just as easily argue that gay rights activist’s speech should be stifled for the same reason. Keeping Phelps’s speech free keeps _my_ speech free, and anyone who is at all concerned with the treatment of minority groups in the US ought to be standing up to protect the right of trogolodytes like Fred Phelps to spout his poisonous ideology in public. The first ammendment cannot survive if we enforce it only for messages we want to hear. ---
**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 9, 2007, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/99 "2007-07-09T18:14:55Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Do you have a cite for anyone being imprisoned, fined, cited, or even tried for saying, “I’m going to kill the president,” absent concrete evidence that they intended follow through on their threat? Sure, it might get you investgated by the Secret Service, but there’s no actual law or ruling forbidding it, so far as I’m aware. [/QUOTE] Well, there’s [Vikram Buddhi](http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/News01/70629017) > [@](#): > > He was convicted of making threats against the president and successors to the president, making threats against former presidents and their families, making threats by interstate communications and use of the Internet to threaten destruction by fire. [Richard Humphreys](http://www.fac.org/news.aspx?id=12391) The law or ruling forbidding it would be 18 US Code 871 and 18 US Code 879. 871 says: > [@](#): > > Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 879 says: > [@](#): > > (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or > inflict bodily harm upon– > (1) a former President or a member of the immediate family of a > former President; > (2) a member of the immediate family of the President, the > President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect; > (3) a major candidate for the office of President or Vice > President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate; or > (4) a person protected by the Secret Service under section > 3056(a)(6); > > shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or > both. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768/100 "2007-07-09T18:20:19Z")
Again…there’s a difference between threats and unpopular speech. My scenario above is perfectly legit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-aclu-defend-phelps-daughter-child-abuse-flag-mutilation-at-military-funeral/410768.md?page=6)