Should ACLU defend Phelps daughter (child abuse, flag mutilation at military funeral)

[E-Sabbath]

I really don’t see the question here. Provided the Phelpses request the aid, this is precisely the kind of thing the ACLU was formed to fight for.

They’re no worse than Nazis, after all.

[samclem]

@E-Sabbath

I really don’t see the question here. Provided the Phelpses request the aid, this is precisely the kind of thing the ACLU was formed to fight for.

They’re no worse than Nazis, after all.

I suggest that they are kinda a version of Nazi-lite. Not actively killing people, just being assholes.

[denquixote]

@Kalhoun

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.

The ACLU’s mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” I don’t see anything in there about scofflaws.

As far as people putting them in to “potentially” dangerous situations, yes you are correct, they do, but not needlessly and not because they need the child to act as a buffer to protect themselves. Maybe this isn’t what happened but I can see the basis for a charge, and a charge that does not involve free speech.

[denquixote]

@tomndebb

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.

From the MSNBC article: "Phelps-Roper was arrested because she was involved in a potentially volatile situation in the presence of Bailey’s friends, relatives and fellow soldiers, Polikov said. Bellevue has a strong military presence, with Offutt Air Force Base located at the south edge of town.

“To come into that environment and communicate what I would call fighting words — provocative language and acts — you can’t do that,” Polikov said. “You might illicit a violent response. That’s against community peace and community law.”

(…)

Flag mutilation and disturbing the peace are each punishable by 90 days in jail, a $500 fine or both. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is punishable by a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or both. All three are misdemeanors.

Polikov said he was considering filing a negligent child abuse charge because Phelps-Roper put her son in a dangerous situation."

Your recollection does not actually form the basis of whether or not a “potentially” dangerous situation was likely to occur. It sure sounds to me like the fuel was there waiting to be lighted. The fact that the prosecutor said he was considering filng child abuse charges based on the mother putting the child in a dangerous situation is good enough for me.

I made no comment on the contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge for encouraging the child to trample the flag.

Did you read the article?

[Ferret_Herder]

The ACLU should defend her, but I agree, they should not do so pro bono as long as she has the ability to pay (assuming that’s their usual method).

I just happen to think they should get a gay and out lawyer to do so.

[Kalhoun]

@Ferret Herder

The ACLU should defend her, but I agree, they should not do so pro bono as long as she has the ability to pay (assuming that’s their usual method).

I just happen to think they should get a gay and out lawyer to do so.

That would so rock.

[Kimstu]

@Ferret Herder

I just happen to think they should get a gay and out lawyer to do so.

Apparently the Nebraska ACLU is [already on it](www.aclunebraska.org/ Phelps%20Flag%20Desecration%20Case.pdf) (warning, pdf):

ACLU Nebraska Announces Entry into Flag Desecration Case

For immediate release: June 8, 2007

ACLU Nebraska announced today it will enter an appearance for Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of a controversial conservative Christian church, who has been criminally charged in Bellevue Nebraska. Phelps-Roper was charged under a Nebraska law that prohibits flag desecration. The arrest happened while Phelps-Roper and other members of her church were conducting one of their protests outside the funeral of a soldier from the Iraq War. […]

The Nebraska law was enacted in the late 1970’s, which was before the US Supreme Court issued its ruling that even burning a flag is protected by the First Amendment. The Nebraska law states: “A person commits the offense of mutilating a flag if such person intentionally casts contempt or ridicule upon a flag by mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon such flag.” (Nebraska Revised Statute Section 28-928)

“The Nebraska law is simply a dead letter law that should not be on the books anymore,” said Amy Miller, Legal Director of ACLU Nebraska. “The Supreme Court has had three separate cases involving so-called flag desecration charges, and each time has found that protestors may use the flag as part of their message.”

“Clearly, the ACLU disagrees with the Westboro Baptist Church’s message that gay people are an abomination,” said Miller. “The ACLU spends a significant amount of time working for equality on the basis of sexual orientation and I myself am gay. But disagreeing with the message doesn’t mean that we can allow the government to try to silence protected free speech. Punishing this use of the flag is contrary to the very spirit of freedom the flag stands for.”

The criminal charges are scheduled for first hearing on July 11 at 9 a.m. in Sarpy County Court. ACLU Nebraska will be preparing legal documents to submit to the court which outline how Phelps-Roper’s conduct was legal and protected by the First Amendment. As with all of their cases, ACLU is representing Phelps-Roper free of charge.

Emphasis added.

[Edit:] More data:

Phelps-Roper has retained Amy Miller as her attorney.

Miller, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, said the case is based on the rights guaranteed citizens by the Constitution of the United States.

“The law is black and white, and the U.S. Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue,” Miller said. “The government can’t pick who has rights and who doesn’t.”

The ACLU is a nonprofit organization and as such will represent Phelps-Roper at no charge, Miller said.

Miller, a lesbian, said her homosexuality will not interfere with her role as a defense attorney in this case.

“We (the ACLU) have had clients who sharply differ from the ACLU, like in the early ‘80s the ACLU defended a group of Nazis’ right to march in a parade in Illinois,” she said. “It’s all about our freedoms.”

Miller said being gay actually makes the case easier for her to defend.

“If we let our government silence groups like this one, like minority groups, that would be a mistake,” Miller said. “If it’s her (Phelps-Roper) today, it could be me tomorrow and the NAACP the next day.”

[Arnold_Winkelried]

Thanks Kimstu. I still wish the ACLU could find some way to present her with a legal bill. Maybe having a gay lawyer represnt Ms. Phelps-Roper is a way to have her decline the help of the ACLU? I don’t see how she could possible have a civil conversation with the ACLU attorney.

[Kimstu]

@Arnold Winkelreid

I don’t see how she could possible have a civil conversation with the ACLU attorney.

Hateful bigots seem remarkably capable of swallowing their “pride” and cooperating when it comes to getting free help from a member of the hated group. I’m reminded of the somewhat similar situation in 1993 when African-American ACLU lawyer Anthony P. Griffin won a civil liberties case for the Ku Klux Klan.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

While I don’t think forced allegiance is a good thing, I also find it reprehensible that the Phelps’ revel in “God’s Hate” of this nation one moment, then wrap themselves in the Constitution of the nation they are crapping on. :rolleyes:

[Miller]

@dennis gallagher

“Polikov said he was considering filing a negligent child abuse charge because Phelps-Roper put her son in a dangerous situation.”

Your recollection does not actually form the basis of whether or not a “potentially” dangerous situation was likely to occur. It sure sounds to me like the fuel was there waiting to be lighted. The fact that the prosecutor said he was considering filng child abuse charges based on the mother putting the child in a dangerous situation is good enough for me.

If that’s a valid criminal charge, couldn’t it be just as easily applied to any mourner who brought their child to the funeral, knowing that the WBC was going to protest it?

[elucidator]

@Zabali_Clawbane

While I don’t think forced allegiance is a good thing, I also find it reprehensible that the Phelps’ revel in “God’s Hate” of this nation one moment, then wrap themselves in the Constitution of the nation they are crapping on. :rolleyes:

The Founding Fathers wrestled with the notion of denying equal rights to assholes, but the plan foundered on an inability to reach a common definition. Which definitions, in many cases, included each other.

[tomndebb]

@dennis gallagher

Did you read the article?

Did you? The DA may be modifying his “reasons” for the charges as time goes on, but the arresting officer, whom I quoted earlier in this thread, noted that he was making the arrest bcause he claimed the adults were deliberately letting the child break the law.

As to the “danger” in which they put the child, that is rampant speculation. The child was never threatened at the rally where this occurred and none of the Phelps’s party have been harmed in any of the other military funerals–many of them near military bases–at whcih they have done their little protest since the Iraq war began.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Hmm. Why *would * she want the ACLU defending her? I was under the impression that they had competent lawyers among their congregation, and they aren’t exactly fans. I honestly don’t get it. What’s the motivation?

And what everyone else said as to whether they should. Yes, of course.

[Kalhoun]

@Miller

If that’s a valid criminal charge, couldn’t it be just as easily applied to any mourner who brought their child to the funeral, knowing that the WBC was going to protest it?

Miller bags it in one.

[Kalhoun]

@Revenant Threshold

Hmm. Why *would * she want the ACLU defending her? I was under the impression that they had competent lawyers among their congregation, and they aren’t exactly fans. I honestly don’t get it. What’s the motivation?

And what everyone else said as to whether they should. Yes, of course.

It’s their way of putting the fuckski to the manski.

[Giles]

@tomndebb

Did you? The DA may be modifying his “reasons” for the charges as time goes on, but the arresting officer, whom I quoted earlier in this thread, noted that he was making the arrest bcause he claimed the adults were deliberately letting the child break the law.

Right. And if the flag-abuse law is a dead-letter and unconstitutional, then the child-abuse charge is bullshit piled on bullshit. I think it’s great that the ACLU is defending the Phelps clan here, however obnoxious the Phelpses might be.

[scotandrsn]

Talk about a case where nothing good can come of it.

This sucker could get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which has just the right composition to want to revisit this issue.

So ultimately, you either end up with a Phelps being triumphant on a national stage, or the SCOTUS removing a free speech protection.

Sucks either way.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

I’ll take Phelps “triumphant on a national stage”. Rights are what this country was founded on, and rights are what we fight for. Give up your rights if you want, but don’t give mine up in the process as well.
Yes, the ACLU should represent.

[Miller]

@scotandrsn

So ultimately, you either end up with a Phelps being triumphant on a national stage, or the SCOTUS removing a free speech protection.

I don’t care if the Phelps think they’re trimuphant or not. If this gets taken to the supreme court, and the law is struck down, that’s a victory for all of us. How the Phelps clan views it is immaterial to me: I’m not in the habit of taking the feelings of lunatics and sociopaths into consideration when it comes to judging best outcomes or ethical behavior.