I did not say she was endangering her child. I said if the prosecutor thought that she might have been I can see how he would arrive at that conclusion. None of us is privy to all of the facts. Policemen who make arrests are not lawyers. They enforce the law to the best of their ability and if they arrest in error presumably the mistake is corrected. If an arrest is made and the prosecutor determines that the circumstances merit additional or more serious charges an investigation is made to determine if that is the case. I don’t know the previous history of Phelps’ protests but I can imagine a scenario where someone became so upset that violence could erupt with innocent people (such as Phelps’ child) being hurt. I cannot imagine a scenario in which Phelps and her family would be doing the attacking (which in my mind would be necessary for the negligence to apply to the mourner who simply brought a child to the funeral.)
If a mourner attacked the Phelps’s and thereby prompted an altercation which caused injury to any child then yes I can see the reason to bring charges against that person, but not simply for attending a funeral.
I can see the same reasoning applying to abortion rights demonstrators and to pro-life demonstrators. If there is a foreseeable risk of injury to your child and you still bring him/her to a demonstration that to me is evidence of neglect.
Anyone who claims the ACLU only defends people they agree with would be stupid, though. And this case isn’t the only reason for that, as you yourself said, they have defended Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan in the past. They don’t gain anything they don’t already have, they already have a large body of work they can point to where they have defended controversial types whose ideology is very different from that of the ACLU’s.
This is certainly untrue. Many people left the ACLU over their defense of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan in the past. The ACLU is not a monolithic group nor have their members not shown distaste for people they defend. Their defense of the Nazis in the Skokie, Illinois case lost that branch of the ACLU 25% of its funding and I believe some 30,000 members resigned in protest.
Yes. Actually, they should have been euthanized as a mass exercise in the improvement of the human species, but pending that, arrest works for me.
The difference involves the presumed legality of the child’s actions. As the resposnsible party, you should bear the burden for your child’s civil disobedience (just like if they steal, you have to pay the restitution). Assuming that the disobedience could reasonably be assumed to place the child in harm’s way, you should also be charged with endangerment.
I’m an ACLU member and I read the reports on new cases that they take on every time that they send me one of their newsletters. Nearly all the time, the opinions of the people who they defend are either fairly mainstream or else distinctly typical of the average ACLU member (liberal or libertarian, not particularly religious, more accepting of people of other races, nationalities, sexual orientations, and religions than most people). The number of times that they take on cases defending the rights of people who greatly disagree with the average ACLU member is actually fairly small. Such cases get noticed more than the ones where they take the cases of people who largely agree with them, but they aren’t very common. (I suspect that the reason that people with opinions greatly different from the average ACLU member don’t get defended much by the ACLU is that such people don’t even think of going to the ACLU for help.) My distinct impression is that most ACLU members are inwardly pleased when they take on cases defending the rights of people who largely disagree with them. Yes, they lose some members this way, but most members have no problems with such cases.
Well, yes, I think that’s a given in this type of thread. There may well be additional information we don’t have that makes these charges (except the flag desecration one) valid. But the purpose of this thread is to debate, with the information we have, wether or not these are legitimate charges, or if the prosecutor is overstepping himself. With the information we have, I don’t see any way you can charge Phelps-Roper with child endangerment from bringing her kid to this protest, without also charging any mourners with the same crime.
I don’t see why it matters who attacks who. Certainly, no matter how outraged or distraught the mourners might be, they aren’t going to deliberatly attack a child: the concern is clearly that if the adults start going at it, the children might be harmed accidentally. Any children in attendence would be at equal risk if the mourners attack the protestors, or vice versa. If it’s negligent for Phelps-Roper to bring a child into that situation, it’s equally negligent for anyone to bring a child into that situation.
Further, it strikes me as bizarre to suggest that Phelps-Roper should be liable because she’s more likely to be attacked. It is not against the law to protest in public. It is against the law to assault people because they’re saying things you don’t like. Holding Phelps-Roper legally responsible because someone else might commit violent assault against her is about the clearest example of blaming the victim as I can imagine.
I also have to say that it’s odd you think it’s more likely that the mourners will attack, and not the WBC. Westboro Baptist is a barely rational extremist cult that’s gone to great lengths to alienate themselves from mainstream society: the last thing in the world that would surprise me would be to hear they’ve turned violent. It’s a wonder they haven’t done so already. Whereas the funeral attendees are mostly average citizens, with a presumably large number of servicemen, whom I’d expect to display greater discipline than normal. Of the two groups, it seems a no-brainer to me to point out which is the greater potential threat to a peaceful gathering.
Isn’t there a real difference in intent, though, between the mourners bringing their kids to the funeral and the protestors bringing their kids? The mourners are going to the funeral for the legitimate purpose of the funeral, to mourn the dead, which is an event that’s not, in itself, likely to involve violence. The protestors, though, are going to the funeral to disrupt it and harass the attendees, actions which carry a real risk of violence. In fact, the very purpose of the protestors is to incite others to act violently against them. I can’t see that it’s in the best interest of the child to be exposed to that sort of thing.
They know in advance if the protestors will be there. They always announce themselves.
I think protest is a legitimate purpose as well. Not very effective for the Phelps clan, but legitimate nonetheless. Protest is supposed to disrupt. They’ve got that part down pat.
First, I disagree with your conclusion about the purpose of the protest. I see where you could think that, but I really think that WBC sees any potential attack as a secondary benefit, not a primary purpose to their asshattedness.
Second, just because something isn’t in the best interest of the child doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily child abuse. Watching mommy smoke, forex, isn’t in the best interest of the child. Bribing a child into silence with treats isn’t in the child’s best interest, either.
But I don’t think either of those examples are child abuse.
Now, I think if you want to make an equivalence that bringing a 10 yo child into such a frought situation is as much against the child’s best interests as exposing the same 10 yo to pornographic images, which the courts, I believe, have said is child abuse - you might have a case. I’m not sure it’s one I’d agree with, but it’s something I’d have to think about.
Right, but the people attending the funeral aren’t doing anything wrong. They’re just trying to mourn their dead. They should be allowed to do that without interference.
As for the Phelps people, it’s bad enough that the courts have ruled that the first amendment gives them the right to do that sort of stuff, but it’s even worse that they’re bringing their kids into it.
How would you feel if you were forbidden to protest something that was important to you?
I don’t think they should push their religious/political agenda on their children, but this was no more worthy of a child endangerment charge than sending a kid to school is.
Miller says: “Well, yes, I think that’s a given in this type of thread. There may well be additional information we don’t have that makes these charges (except the flag desecration one) valid. But the purpose of this thread is to debate, with the information we have, wether or not these are legitimate charges, or if the prosecutor is overstepping himself. With the information we have, I don’t see any way you can charge Phelps-Roper with child endangerment from bringing her kid to this protest, without also charging any mourners with the same crime.”
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? 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.
If a funeral goer took some action that might cause a potential confrontation where a child might potentiall face the threat of harm I would agree that s/he could be charged with neglect or abuse. Mere attendance at the funeral does not meet that criteria.
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.
Only if some prosecutor has the odd idea that he or she should get away with filing a bogus charge of child endangerment on the remote chance that violence might break out and a child might then be harmed if the violence happened to break out.
If the prosecutor wants to use “child endangerment” as a way to impede the rights of speech and association, then it should apply to all parents of all children in attendance at the event.
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.
I think that decent people will see what a fine stance this is and by contrast how unpleasant those organisations are.
I also find it appropriate that a competent gay lawyer has been offered to the Phelps. This will again show what sort of people they are.
I’d guess the attorneys in the Westboro Baptist Church congregation are not licensed to practice in Nebraska. That seems the most likely explination. If they had the opportunity to have one of their own giving the speeches and preparing the court documents they’d probably jump at the chance to work some propaganda into it. That’s been their MO in the past.
As to if the ACLU should take this case, I’m going to say no, they shouldn’t. This is pretty much an open and shut case. Cite a handful of Supreme Court cases and file a motion for dismissal. There probably won’t be much more to it. If, by some freak chance, Phelps-Roper is convicted, THEN they should take the appeal.
The ACLU can pick and choose their battles here because they, and others, have fought this one before and there is no compelling reason to re-fight it. All that happens is one state has to repeal a toothless law. Pretty much any public defender could get the same outcome and they could do so because the ACLU, and similar rights-defense organizations, did all the hard work already.
I wonder if your opinion would be the same if violence had actually broken out and her child was injured. That child, as a 10 year old has no right to free speech and assembly, and barring the child from being present, due to a potential of danger, has no effect on the parent’s rights of assembly and speech whatsoever. I guess if you had wanted to take your kid to a Rolling Stones’ concert at Altamont everyone should say that’s ok because, what the heck, the Hell’s Angels will be providing all the necessary security. The fact is, the protesters relish confrontation because it gets them more publicity, with confrontation comes danger. The funeral goers have no such desire and may not even be aware of the protest before deciding to attend. You should not have to call your police department or watch CNN before deciding whether or not to attend Uncle Jim’s funeral. To equate the two situations is absurd.
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.