Given the content of the current SCOTUS, I would prefer that Ms. Phelps get a “Not Guilty” verdict so that it does not wind up in appeals. I would fear that the current court would invent some rationalization similar to the silly “ceremonial deism” and wind up propagating lots of similar stupid laws across the country.
I would say no, the difference being the child in question was not an invitee but was going to be cared for by the one person who was basically causing all the ruckus and who might expect to be in harm’s way under the right circumstances. Unless you expect the protesters to cause some sort of injury or harm to a child, and of course that is possible, but it is hard for me to see how that would be foreseeable to the general public if it is not so foreseeable to the police department.
Yes and he arrested the woman and among other charges, he charged her with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a charge, about which i have no opinion and staed none. What I referred to was the prosecuting attorney’s comment that the child may have been in danger and he was considering negligence on the part of the parent, which is good enough for me.
Given the fact that you were not there and appear to not have any more information than I do, namely the article cited, it is remarkable to me that you can continue to argue about this.
Given the fact that you were not there and appear to not have any more information than I do, namely the article cited, it is remarkable to me that you can continue to argue about this.
How do they know that? Were there other clan members present or was it just the two of them?
Also, how does anyone know how a funeral attendee would react to their presence? I can easily imagine someone getting into it with the clan members, and possibly putting their children in danger. The whole thing is stupid and based on that cop’s personal, overreactive opinion. Not that it’s the first time I’ve seen a cop overstep his bounds, mind you.
Now this is interesting.
I was taking DevNull’s bait and googling the various quoted phrases in the OP of this thread.
The first Google result for the phrase “Wiping his ass with the Constitution” brought up a blog post with this picture.
I guess the President better steer clear of Nebraska.
Should people who bring their children to abortion protests be arrested? How about all the people who brought their kids to the hospice during the Terri Schiavo circus? How about the parents who encourage their kids to lie down in front of cars to block access to abortion clinics? How about the parents who encouraged their kids to try to break into the hospice and pour water down Terri Schiavo’s throat (which would have drowned her, resulting in yet another crime)?
For waht political protests is it permissable to bring children and for which ones does it become “child endangerment?” Somehow I doubt the police are rounding up abortion protesters.
Statistically speaking, a child is in more danger being driven in a car on a freeway than from standing around a few people waving signs. Maybe we should arrest all those people driving their kids to grandma’s house over the 4th.
I don’t understand how this is a rebuttal to what I posted. Shirly Phelps-Roper is endangering her child because she brings him to a protest where he might be assaulted by angry funeral attendees. But a theoretical funeral attendee who brings her kid to a funeral she knows is going to be protested by a bunch of emotionally unstable religious extremists isn’t “endangering” her child in the same manner? That doesn’t make any sense. You’re holding Phelps-Roper to a different legal standard because you don’t like her or what she stands for. Which is understandable. Unjust, but understandable.
My point being, that they are hypocrites. They stand on their soapboxes preaching God’s Hatred of hypocrisy, when they marinate in it. I know we can’t ban assholes, and that’s a good thing, because everyone is a jerk sometimes, but many people aren’t all of the time. I know the ACLU must defend them in this, and I agree with why. Doesn’t take the sour taste out of my mouth though. Where’s the lube?
I hate the Phelps clan, and everything that they stand for. I would love nothing more than to find some just way to make them all shut up. Alas, I don’t think that’s a possible goal.
The ACLU is doing the right thing here. And I, too, glory in the fact that Ms. Phelps-Roper now has to work with a gay-and-out lawyer.
And sometimes it takes letting assholes win victories on the national stage to protect the rights of all of us. At this late date, I don’t think that there’s anyone who will respond to a Phelps clan victory by joining them - they are rather well known, already.
Wait. Gay-and-out lawyer? Where? Oh, that’d be fantastic.
See post number 27. 
Can anyone answer the following questions? I believe that the ACLU doesn’t feel any necessity to take on every case that comes up in their field where one of the parties to the case (Note: I mean the party whose case they agree with) asks them to. I believe that they don’t have the resources to take them all on. I think that in some cases they say, “We don’t think your case is significant enough for us to take on.” Is that the case? Also, I believe that the ACLU can’t charge their clients any money for their services or for the services of any lawyer or law firm associated with them. I believe that that’s the point of the ACLU. Is that the case?
You know, as much as I would like to say no. The answer is yes. Nothing will hurt the Phelps message than to be defended by the ACLU.
I tend to agree. I don’t think it is because they have had a change of heart about the ACLU. If anyone has watched the Louis Theroux documentary about the WBC they explain that pretty much anyone who is not a member of WBC is a sinner, a “fag-enabler” and going to hell. That includes of course, everyone in the ACLU.
I imagine the WBC gets satisfaction out of its knowledge that an organization like the ACLU is having to expend resources in defending them and that individuals within the ACLU will probably be uncomfortable with having to do so.
Other people within the ACLU are actually quite happy about this. This allows them to say, “See. We do defend the rights of people who we disagree with.” Like the defense of the Nazis, this case will be remembered more than many other cases in which people whose worldviews are similar to most people in the ACLU were defended by the ACLU. This case will allow ACLU members to contradict people who claim that the ACLU only cares about the rights of people who basically agree with them.
I don´t think there´s anything wrong with bringing children to protests, even ones I disagree with.
However, I wonder about disturbing the peace by hosting a protest at a funeral - if the protesters were being beligerant towards the mourners and did more than have a peaceful protest, then that charge might be reasonable. Even if not illegal, it´s certainly distasteful to have a protest at a funeral…it seems like by enacting their rights to free speech they were also infringing on the rights of the mourners to mourn their dead.
Unfortunately, there is no law (and I believe that there can’t be one) to prevent people from being jerks. To call the Phelps clan, and the Westboro Baptist Church, jerks is an insult to the noble name title of jerk, but it gets the point across, I think. They’re vile, hateful scum. But the moment we start trying to legislate what is hateful behavior we get into a boondoggle. I’m still not convinced, for example, that the various hate-crime riders are Constitutional or moral. I know the arguements, and understand the desire to punish someone for doing something so vile. But…
And let’s not forget, for all their vile nature, the Phelps clan is usually very careful to remain just on the side of the law. In public, at least.
There was a recent thread that covered an Indian tribe who successfully prevented the Phelps’ from protesting a funeral on their reservation. I will see if I can dig it up and link it. Here it is.
I actually don’t think the ACLU would be uncomfortable at all with defending them. Defending them is right in line with their principles and ideology. The content of the speech being defended has never mattered a whit to them.