ACLU Challenges Kentucky's Funeral Protest Law

[LiberalHeart]

FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging a Kentucky law aimed at preventing protests from disrupting funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq. Members of a Kansas Baptist church have protested at military funerals, claiming soldiers' deaths are a sign that God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality.

More:
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4845785

[Charlie Brown]

1. good for ACLU

I detest the Westboro people, but they should not be barred from expressing their views in public.

This and similar laws only reinforce the "free speech zones."

[wtmusic]

3. wrong

There is no reason to disrupt a funeral. Ever. This is harrassment.

[Charlie Brown]

4. Have they disrupted the funerals?

I thought they just picketed within view. Am I wrong?

Harrassment is already a crime.

[Selteri]

22. The church doing it is a far far right radical group

this group has become a point where they are being accused of being a fringe 'liberal' group that is protesting Gays in America and claiming that is the reason we are losing in Iraq.

These people are sick, but I'll defend their right to speak as long as they don't actually harass the funerals.

[iam]

56. Would all you people

stop validating conservatives by calling them "right". Stop hurting the cause by saying Liberals are "pro" abortion and conservatives are "anti" abortion. The truth is just the opposite. In both cases conservatism is "wrong" and everyone is "anti" abortion especially Liberals because they try to reduce unwanted pregnancies which are the cause of almost all abortions. Every word counts, use them wisely.

[Selteri]

23. Dupe Self Delete

dupe seldel

[mike_c]

5. it's tasteless and ugly, but that's what puts the "free..."

...in free speech, my friend. I'm with the ACLU on this one.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

16. Gotta be

The most hateful speech is the speech that requires we protect it most fiercely.

My first ACLU volunteer lawyer gig out of law school was helping to defend the right of the KKK to march in Skokie. Remember that? It was the correct thing to do, and I'll always be proud of my teeny involvement in that one. Brought home the First Amendmen to me in a way that's defined my professional (and personal) lives for three decades since.

Shine the light on the cockroaches, and they scurry. You don't stomp them - you shine the light and you treat them - this is hard, I know - as the Americans they are, with the same rights as we have.

There are remedies for the aggrieved families, and they should be pursuing them.

[wicket]

19. Amen to that

"A little sunlight is the best disinfectant."

-US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

[saigon68]

41. Good for you

I love your standing up to the mob of haters here

[Guaranteed]

10. No, I'm afraid you are the "wrong" one.

This is pure freedom of speech.

Neither you nor anyone else gets to decide who can say what in public places.

[wtmusic]

36. Wrong again!

"The (Supreme) Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’ speech. Even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be subject to “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” And, even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the basis of its content if the restriction passes “strict scrutiny,” i.e., if the government shows that the restriction serves “to promote a compelling interest” and is “the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest.”

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/95-815.pdf

In short, the SC has found that common sense prevails.

[Jokerman]

43. You just shot down your own argument.

"even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the basis of its content if the restriction passes “strict scrutiny,” i.e., if the government shows that the restriction serves “to promote a compelling interest” and is “the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest."

By chalenging the law, the ACLU is simply forcing the govenment to prove that it meets the above criteria. That's what courts are for.

[wtmusic]

44. We'll see

The court could find that the right to conduct a funeral without harrassment "promotes a compelling interest". IMO this would be justified.

[Tesha]

48. "The right of the President to speak unhindered...

"The right of the President to speak unhindered
is clearly in our national interest."

Right?

You agree with that, don'tcha?

Tesha

[wtmusic]

51. Straw man

Funerals. Funerals only. It's not that hard to understand, is it? :eyes:

[Tesha]

54. Presidential appearances. Presidential appearances only.

> Funerals. Funerals only. It's not that hard to understand, is it?

Presidential appearances. Presidential appearances only. It's not that
hard to understand, is it?

Tesha

[wtmusic]

57. Wow. Two straw men in a row. You're going for a record.

So allowing one exception implies acceptance of all others. Please explain your logic.

[Tesha]

59. If you can limit their speech, *THEY* can limit yours.

This isn't a tough concept to "get"; why are
you having so much trouble with it?

Oh yeah: You just want to limit speech that
*YOU* don't like.

Just like them.

Tesha

[wtmusic]

62. the fallacy of induction

induction: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles. Implying that one exception allows all others.

They can limit my speech. I would have no right to go to their funeral and act like an asshole. I'm fine with that.

[Tesha]

64. (No wonder Democrats are perceived as standing for nothing) (NT)

[wtmusic]

67. Well, keep up the good fight

Peace.

[bling bling]

108. Sorry to interrupt...

But this is exactly what is wrong with DU lately, and exactly what is prompting the threads by many people wondering why this place seems so hostile.

Is it not possible for us to disagree and discuss our differing points of view without being mean spirited about it and essentially implying that the person you disagree with is siding with the neocons?? As though your opinion is "the" liberal opinion and anyone who disagrees with you cannot also have a liberal-minded opinion.

There are people here that enjoy reading discussion and intelligent debate. But I think I speak for many people when I say that some of us are tired of having to read posts that offer snide, beligerent comments rather than thoughtful debate.

[Guaranteed]

101. Yes. This is not narrowly tailored, nor is there a compelling state

interest. The state interest involved- and I would be surprised if you could identify, much less cite it- is certainly not compelling enough to infringe on someone's 1st Amendment rights.

I've argued these Constitutional issues in memos of law, before- in federal court.

And won.

You're wrong.

On edit: You really ought to research this more. Find out what they're talking about when they say that the law has to be narrowly tailored and serve a compelling state interest, since- and here's a new term for ya- the law restricts a fundamental liberty interest. It's a fascinating subject.

[wordpix]

81. a funeral is a public place? Since when? When my father died, it wasn't a

funeral open to the public.

[Guaranteed]

102. If people are standing on the sidewalk, protesting, that

is a public place.

[wicket]

17. Free speech is free speech, even the most offensive

n/t

[Tesha]

25. There is no reason to disrupt a President ever. This is harrassment.

(How's it sound now?)

Tesha

[wtmusic]

35. Oh please

Can someone follow you down the sidewalk screaming obscenities at you?

The answer is no. It's called "disturbing the peace". It's called "harrassment".

[TX-RAT]

38. And could get the shit kicked out of ya.

[wtmusic]

45. Awright, stop with the common sense already

:P

[Tesha]

39. Whatever you say. It's your rights you're giving away. (NT)

[wtmusic]

42. I would love to know what Cindy Sheehan thinks about this

:shrug:

[Tesha]

47. You never know; she may have better sense than you...

> I would love to know what Cindy Sheehan thinks about this

You never know; she may have better sense than
you and more ability to see the big picture or
to think strategicallery.

As I said, it's *YOUR* rights you're arguing
that we give up.

Tesha

[wtmusic]

52. Yes, and she may have better sense than you blah blah

Ad hominems and empty comparisons to some "big picture" add absolutely nothing to your argument.

[Tesha]

55. Why don't you ask her and settle it?

Why don't you ask her and settle it, seeing as
how you're the one who brought her up as an
argument settler?

Tesha

[wtmusic]

60. Did I?

I don't remember bringing her up as the "settler". Can you show me where?

[Tesha]

61. See your #42, just above us. (NT)

[karlrschneider]

87. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot those bastards but I don't think abrogating

their First Amendment rights is the way to protect and defend the Constitution. After all, what good is the Bill of Rights if it only applies to certain people?

[insleeforprez]

33. I agree

It's scary that a few assholes start protesting at funerals (even though they're essentially acting like terrorists), and we start curtailing one of the most fundamental rights we hold in America.

[wtmusic]

2. ACLU 0, Common Sense 1

As if the ACLU doesn't have any other issues to spend their time and money on. :eyes:

[LiberalHeart]

6. For me, this is really a test of my views...

Everything in me wants to shut these people down, but that means we can all be shut down. I do, of course, see a funeral as a very private event so maybe I can bend my beliefs to agree it's okay to make the funeral off limits to the protesters. But as someone pointed out above, that's akin to creating free speech zones. I suspect the reason the ACLU took on this case is because it's in their DNA to take on the difficult ones that are, at their core, unpopular -- yet, also at their core, they deal with essential rights.

The group was supposedly going to protest at a funeral near me not long ago, then didn't show up. It's weird: even by not being there, they were on everyone's mind. Mission accomplished.

[Selteri]

24. I personally think the group is sick as I've known about them for a while.

That being said - They are still given that right, there are legal remedies for them, especially under the Slander laws as they have in the past they have slandered the fallen soldiers in their protests with accusations.

[Tesha]

27. Free speech, FREE SPEECH FOR EVERYONE, is probably...

Free speech, FREE SPEECH FOR EVERYONE, is probably
*THE* basic right.

I'm always amazed how quickly DUers are willing to
give away other people's rights.

Tesha

[saigon68]

50. Doesn't amaze me at all

There are a lot of Right Wing goose steppers here.

I remember the anti-war days when guys like Mayor Daley enjoyed busting heads.

He was a "democrat" too.

[KittyWampus]

124. So you're fine with anti-choice protestors outside women's health clinics?

proestors replete with graphic signs and hurtful slogans?

[BBG]

132. Actually...

This is an issue that they should be spending money and time on. Which is why I donate above and beyond my membership dues to support the ACLU. Because issues such as these do impact our civil liberties and no one else will stand against them, calling bullshit to them and opposing them when they arise.

[Mythsaje]

7. They're perfectly within their rights to protest military funerals...

Then again, Special Forces soldiers might well feel justified in catching them unawares and beating the living crap out of them while wearing the modern version of ninja garb.

All they have to do is piss off the wrong people--those who aren't afraid of a lawsuit, or figure out any easy way around it by not being identifiable.

In a way one might argue that the protest law protects them from their own stupidity.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. Oh, that's real smart

Yeah, someone exercises a Constitutionally-protected right - free speech - and military thugs, I don't care what uniform they're wearing, beat them up?

What the hell kind of country do YOU want?

Be afraid of a lawsuit, my friend, especially while there are lawyers such as I around, because we'll not let brutes take away the right of free speech, even from other brutes.

And, by the way, those "Special Forces" guys would be prosecuted under the UCMJ. Ever read THAT little work of art?

Beat up people who are speaking their minds. How totally George W. Bush.

[Tesha]

28. "What the hell kind of country do YOU want?"

> What the hell kind of country do YOU want?"

A lot of DUers have made that pretty clear haven't they?
Brownshirts are okay as long as the reicht people are
wearing them.

Tesha

[OldLeftieLawyer]

31. Scary, but, yeah, you're right

And that reminds me of an college professor back in the sixties who said to me, "You're going to see that the wildest hippies will turn out to be the biggest Puritans."

Well, we'll watch out for them, too, and let them keep talking, but the minute they take a swing, they'll be taking it at me and my First Amendment Posse, and we'll be happy then to show them how it really works.

Thanks, Tesha.

[Mythsaje]

77. I've made it pretty clear

I'm anti-authoritarian across the board. I don't care WHICH hats the would-be tyrants are wearing.

This particular bunch of yahoos, on the other hand, are kicking at hornets nests at random, and one of these days they're going to kick the wrong one and suffer the consequences.

Then again, I'm not much of a believer in the idea people should be protected from their own stupidity.

[Mythsaje]

76. I'm not saying they SHOULD

I'm saying it could happen.

And you can't prosecute people you can't even identify.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

84. That belongs in the

"Oh, please" Hall of Fame.

Nice attitude you have there towards free speech, pal.

Welcome to BushWorld.

[Mythsaje]

86. Get an attitude...

Just because I'm stating the obvious.

These people are playing with fire and anyone with a lick of sense knows it. Getting on your high horse to look down at me for pointing this out is just pathetic.

The fact is that there are a lot of people who wouldn't stoop to violence to deal with something like this...unfortunately, what they're dealing with, directly, are people who are TRAINED to use violence to solve problems. And, all things considered, it's certainly possible that they might eventually irritate the wrong group of people and get stung for it.

I live in a neighborhood, that, ten years ago or so, saw a firefight erupt between gang members and a group of Army Rangers. That sort of thing happens.

I'm not arguing FOR the no protest law, which is what you seem to assume. I'm just pointing out that the case could be made that it might have ended up protecting them from reprisal.

In general I'm absolutely in favor of idiots being able to be idiots in public. Easier to avoid that way.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

89. The only obvious you're stating

is your inability to understand the significance of free speech vis-a-vis the possibility of violence, which, honestly, seems to appeal to you far too much to be healthy.

I assume nothing beyond what you stated, and your comments were nothing but incendiary and provocative, obscuring any possible discussion about how the First Amendment matters. You did like the idea of Ninjas or Special Forces, as I recall, and that, my friend, is where I left you behind.

Have a good one.

<click>

[Mythsaje]

90. Ah, the LIBERAL version

of the "stick my fingers in my ears and go 'lalalala' I can't hear you."

Whatever. You don't know shit about me or what I think. You probably haven't even ever visited my webpage. I said something you don't like and you assume you know everything you need to know.

Whatever.

[The Straight Story]

98. And the islamic wackos are playing with that same fire- and we are there

now showing them what happens when you piss off americans. You die.

A country born in war, bred for war, and whose continuance is based in war. That is the Obvious to me. Pretty much the same ideal - piss with pit bull and get bit.

[MercutioATC]

8. Some here seem to be missing the point (as I see it).

This isn't about protesting at funerals, it's about civil rights.

The ACLU exists for the SOLE purpose of defending civil rights, even when they're defending the "bad guy's" liberties. Think of the ACLU as an anchor WAAAAAAY out on the liberties end of the "liberties vs. common sense" scale.

That's why I have such respect for the ACLU. While I frequently disagree with the situational elements of the cases they pursue, they are one of the few groups with a pure purpose...and they're very diligent about pursuing that purpose on principle, even when the specific case is distasteful.

[Demeter]

9. I See NO Civil RIght To Harrass A Grieving Family

There is a line between free speech and assault. If one's Right to swing one's arms ends where my nose starts, then too one's rights to protest end at my privacy zone. The issue of privacy, whether a funeral, or a medical procedure, or a family's structure and membership, will be defined by the extremists who show the people and the law just where "too far" is.

I am confident that the ACLU will come around to this point of view also, and in the very near future.

[Guaranteed]

11. So, what about Cindy Sheehan? Was she not "harassing"

the Chimp?

No, sir. That's not the way it works.

[brmdp3123]

74. I wonder how she would have liked it...

if there were protesters at Casey's funeral.

[Demeter]

94. Bush Is An Official of the Government

He "gave up" his right to privacy--but somehow, with his Brown Shirts, Secret Agents and henchmen, he has more privacy than any private citizen.

[Guaranteed]

103. We can "harass" the President?

Since when?

You think the Secret Service would have anything to say about that?

[Demeter]

111. Since the President Makes Policy, He Is an Appropriate Target of Protest

And political protest of an official's positions or policies does not constitute Harassment.

Dead soldiers did not make policy, they fulfilled their pledges. Their families have suffered grievous losses. Political protest at the funeral constitutes harassment, a totally gratuitous assault on a family's privacy.

DEFINITION OF HARASSMENT

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/harass;_ylt=AjBowZIvAWOnEbZo3e8ODCysgMMF
ha·rass (h-rs, hrs) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:
ha·rassed , ha·rass·ing , ha·rass·es
To irritate or torment persistently.
To wear out; exhaust.
To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
French harasser, possibly from Old French harer, to set a dog on, from hare, interj. used to set a dog on, of Germanic origin


DEFINITION OF PROTEST

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/protest;_ylt=Ar3Hgowx1ueiOGYnzg0zq52sgMMF

VERB:
pro·test·ed , pro·test·ing , pro·tests
VERB:
tr.

To object to, especially in a formal statement. See Synonyms at object.

intr.

To express strong objection.
To make an earnest avowal or affirmation.
NOUN:
(prtst)
A formal declaration of disapproval or objection issued by a concerned person, group, or organization.
An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval.
Law
A formal statement drawn up by a notary for a creditor declaring that the debtor has refused to accept or honor a bill.
A formal declaration made by a taxpayer stating that the tax demanded is illegal or excessive and reserving the right to contest it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English protesten, from Old French protester, from Latin prtestr : pr-, forth ; see pro- 1 + testr, to testify (from testis, witness; see trei- in Indo-European root.

SO HARASSMENT AND PROTEST DIFFER IN THEIR TARGETS, THEIR FORMS, THEIR PURPOSE, AND THEIR RESULTS. THE TWO TERMS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE, NOR ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS PROPER TARGETS FOR POLICY PROTESTS. ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS DISINGENUOUS AT BEST, AND A FREEPER AT WORST.

ESSENTIALLY, HARASSMENT IS A HATE CRIME, PROTEST IS PROTECTED SPEECH, AND PEOPLE WELL KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

[Guaranteed]

114. But, if you're actually talking about the interests of the state,

the reasons to keep protestors away from the President are about a thousand times more compelling. I.E., security.

In other words, there is an actual compelling argument to keep people away from the President. There is NOT one for civilians.

[Demeter]

120. No, Security Is NOT a Sufficient Reason for "Free Speech Zones"

nor any other bending and breaking of the Constitution of the United States.

[Zhade]

12. "Harass" is different than "protest".

If Phelps' sick little gang of mental mutants are actually harassing those attending funerals, that's already a crime.

If they're just protesting them, it's reprehensible, BUT it's protected speech.

ACLU is right on this.

[Tesha]

66. Thank you for recognizing the difference. (NT)

[Zhade]

93. Believe me, it makes me uncomfortable, being queer and all.

The likes of Phelps want me DEAD, but as you note, there is a difference.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing Phelps and his crew die out (of natural causes, of course).

[jukes]

14. if the nutjobs remain on public property

then they are free to demonstrate. that's clear.

[Tesha]

49. And just to put a finer point on it...

And just to put a finer point on it, many
cemetaries *ARE* public property.

Tesha

[OldLeftieLawyer]

21. It's not assault

You're confusing your torts and crimes with your Constitutional right to free speech.

No one was assaulted. Sticks and stones, you know?

It's Americans - no matter how hateful their views and practices - exercising the same Constitutional rights that you and I have, and we are forced to defend them, or else we're becoming those managed, carefully vetted gatherings where Fuckface goes to make his little speeches only to those who will agree with him and applaud him.

No one wants that.

I'm a volunteer ACLU attorney. The ACLU is dead right on this one, and I hope you'll "come around" to understand what the brilliant and precious concept of free speech means to everyone. It must always be defended, or else we all lose.

[Tesha]

29. Check that First Amendment again; I think you missed it. (NT)

[wordpix]

82. I'm with you & further, think ACLU should put its resources into defending

our rights against BushCo's spying without warrants, changing laws passed by Congress with the stroke of Bush's pen, lying to Congress and America about the reasons to go to war in Iraq and so on.

I will not support ACLU when it throws away its money to defend the RW homophobes' right to disrupt military funerals. :wtf:

[brmdp3123]

13. I disagree.

A family has a right to bury its loved one in peace. It's not like there's nowhere else to protest the war. How would you feel if someone used the occasion of your child's funeral to make a political point? The ACLU is dead wrong on this one.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

20. No, it doesn't

It has a righ to bury its loved one. No one said anything about "in peace." Firetrucks flying by can disrupt a funeral, and so can thunderstorms or a car crashing through the cemetery gates while being pursued by LA cops. Stuff like that.

Outside the cemetery, the American Constitution says that free speech prevails.

Sorry, but that's what we fight for every day - to protect our right to free speech. Funerals, while usually sad occasions, are not exempt from the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of others to give voice to what they believe, in a public forum, no matter how hideous their beliefs.

This is a very big test of tolerance and a great lesson in beginning to understand that speech must be free for everyone or else it isn't free for anyone.

[brmdp3123]

68. Hardly the same thing.

There's a big difference between an accidental occurrence and an intentional disruption by a bunch of mean-spirited assholes who could just as easily protest somewhere else.

It's not even civil rights we're talking about. It just good manners.

[Tesha]

69. Yes, they should be happy in their "First Amendment Zones"...

Yes, they should be happy in their "First Amendment Zones",
out of sight and out of mind.

As should everyone.

Tesha

[wtmusic]

71. And you should be happy with eliminating exceptions for "hate crimes"

You know, the laws that deal with spraypainting "Death to Kikes" on a synagogue, burning crosses in African-American families' yards...all those should just be considered vandalism, right? We don't want to limit anyone's freedom of speech...

[Tesha]

73. I'm not sure about hate crimes, but I've certainly...

I'm not sure about hate crimes per se, but I've certainly
spoken out here calling for the elimination of college
"PC" speech codes and other unconstitutional restrictions
on speech.

On the other hand, in the specific example you cited,
I think it's pretty clear that we could prosecute
people for tresspassing upon and vandalizing private
property and still come up with a pretty stiff
sentence *WITHOUT* resorting to any sort of
hate-crime fall-back. And we might very well be able
to pile up a few harassment charges as well, again
without resorting to special "hate crime" laws. Your
right to free speech doesn't extend to painting your
words or burning your cross on my property without my
permission and most of us acept that if you, by your
actions, threaten me, you're on the wrong side of
several laws already.

Tesha

[wtmusic]

75. Although I tend to dig in

to a position when I'm challenged on it (what can I say, part-Irish) I see and understand your POV, and apologize if I've come across as being rude.

As a personal issue the idea of having respect for funerals seems so fundamental that it spans party and ideology lines--even to the point of some abdication of personal rights. That goes for hate crimes too. It's when discussion of these issues themselves is limited that we're in real trouble.

That said, one more exception...it should give anyone pause. In a day when new encroachments seem to pop up daily it appears to be the last thing we need.

:)

[Tesha]

78. Thank you.

> Although I tend to dig in to a position when
> I'm challenged on it (what can I say, part-Irish)
> I see and understand your POV, and apologize if
> I've come across as being rude.

Thank you; no worries!

Tesha

[OldLeftieLawyer]

70. Manner?

No, we're talking about something far more important than "good manners."

The Constitution.

Good manners are what we teach our children. The Constitution is America.

Hardly the same thing.

[karlrschneider]

88. When people are arrested for "bad manners" it's time to forget our

grand experiment in democracy.

[wtmusic]

37. By taking cases like this they hurt their cause

Possibly from a purist standpoint they are right.

Laws have never been meant to be enforced from a purist standpoint. Every law, from the Constitution on down to the lowliest misdemeanor, is not only subject to interpretation in the courts, but to be enforced at the enforcer's discretion. There is no black and white -- only gray. Does that leave room for abuse? You bet.

I would like someone to point out what harm could come from restricting free speech within 500 ft of funerals. An exception (like many that already exist).

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/95-815.pdf

[MercutioATC]

91. Exactly. They fight from a purist standpoint.

It's not their job to garner support for their cause or to only take on popular cases. It's also not their job to consider, even to the smallest extent, the emotional factors of an issue.

I disagree with a great many of the cases they defend from an emotional standpoint, but I respect them for what they do. They're the only purist rights anchor that exists.

[Tesha]

116. Thank you for seeing this. (NT)

[Ian David]

15. Playing devil's advocate:Families can opt not to have a military funeral

When Uncle Sam sends an honor guard and a bugler to a funeral, that is our tax dollars at work... that is a publicly funded event that we as Americans have paid for.

The family of our fallen soldiers have opted to turn the funeral into a public government event, rather than a private family event.

It's the difference between protesting on someone's lawn, and protesting in a public park.

By choosing to make it a military funeral, the families are also choosing to make it a public event, and to turn it into a political statement that invites comment and controversy. They've injected themselves into a public debate.

Do they deserve a private time of grief? Yes.
But they themselves have opted to take it out of the private realm and to invite public comment by using the funeral as a public statement when they make it a "milatary funeral."

Personally, I'm glad that The ACLU took this case. But I hope they lose.

These laws need to be reviewed, and hopefully allowed to stand, but only under a very narrow set of circumstances.

[LiberalHeart]

110. But these aren't military funerals....

The ones I've read about where this stuff has taken place are plain ol' burials and the protesters have shown up for them. It just happens that those who died were soldiers.

[Nomen Tuum]

26. I gave up on the ACLU when they opposed Mc Cain-Feingold.

I lost all respect for their defense of unlimited money in politics and their defense of dope pusher Oliver North.

[Tesha]

30. Sucks that even people you don't like have rights, ehh? (NT)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. You sure do have a long memory

and a short understanding of what the ACLU stands for.

You might want to update your information. It's a great organization that works for people like us against people who don't want us to be us.

And, a belated welcome to DU.

Oliver North? He was never represented by the ACLU, so far as I know. His charges were dismissed because his attorney had brokered him a perfectly brilliant immunity deal. That had nothing to do with civil rights.

Oliver North?

[DelawareValleyDem]

53. They were somehow involved in North's appeal.

I don't remember the details but they mention it on their web site.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

[Tesha]

58. From the "Palm Beach Post"...

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/limbaugh/011304_limbaugh.html

"The ACLU stepped in on behalf of Oliver North during
the Iran-Contra scandal, arguing that he should not be
compelled to testify and then be prosecuted based on
what he said. His conviction ultimately was overturned."

Okay, who here disagrees with that principle? And
if you disagree, have you read the Fifth Amendment?

Tesha

[OldLeftieLawyer]

72. Perhaps as an amicus brief,

if you can find it, that would be nice to see.

But, that was simply the ACLU doing its job. If you think it's acceptable for courts to ignore what is put before them by prosecutors in order to get to the full story, you have to go learn about how our court system works, because, if that's what you think is right, you've already moved into George W. Bush's Roach Motel, and from there, my friend, there is no exit.

Check it out. Find the details. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. I believe this is orchestrated by those in power...

to weaken the First Amendment. Those in power are working towards fascism. They are usurping power at unprecedented levels. They are taking away rights of the average citizen, while claiming it is for our own protection.

The funeral protesting is brilliant. Everyone--even the far left--finds the behavior reprehensible and therefore we are willing to give up our rights just a little bit. But you know, rights are not given up just a little bit.

[zann725]

40. No doubt, many protestors have "Support Troops" magnet on their SUV's

..and fail to see the hypocrasy of it all.

[arwalden]

46. I Agree With The ACLU On This.

[sutz12]

63. Yeah the ACLU is so Left Wing....

:sarcasm:

Rights are rights. I have to side with them on this one, as distasteful as the funeral protests are.

[Tesha]

65. Thank you! (NT)

[slackmaster]

79. This is half of the reason I quit the ACLU years ago

:nuke:

[Guaranteed]

105. Sounds like you were never really with them.

This is classic freedom of speech.

Skokie, Illinois. Disagreed there, probably, too, eh?

[slackmaster]

112. Disrupting a funeral by spouting bigoted crap shouldn't be protected

In my opinion. There are plenty of venues to express one's hateful views without casting a pall on an innocent person's solemn private ceremony.

Skokie, Illinois. Disagreed there, probably, too, eh?

Yes, I did. Support of racist assholes plus ACLU's ongoing refusal to support individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms pushed me over the limit. They're working against my interests. I stopped sending them money about 15 years ago.

[wordpix]

80. WTF? ACLU doesn't have enough to do defending US from NSA spying?

Now ACLU is protecting the fundies' right to harass families of war dead attending funerals because those RW wacko fundies support God's punishment of America for tolerating gays. :crazy:

I was going to send ACLU some money to help with the spy case against NSA and BushCo but if my money is going to ensure these fundies can harass people at soldiers' funerals, forget the money. I'm not supporting ACLU. One needs to pick his battles and this is one battle ACLU should not be picking. Let some RW wacko attorney defend the homophobes' right to disrupt soldiers' funerals. Not on my money. :puke: :mad:

[Chrisduhfur]

122. Bad attitude.

If the ACLU had the same attitude as you then people would be correct in calling it a organization with a left-wing agenda. Is that what you want the ACLU to be viewed as? Nearly everyone thinks these people are disgusting, but they are within their rights to protest.

[brentspeak]

83. Harassment is not covered under "free speech"

And if the funerals take place at private cemeteries, protesters of any sort should legally be allowed to be booted out.

Here's hoping the ACLU gets stuffed on this one.

[jseankil]

85. Good to know I can disrupt families burying their dead. Such freedom!

Thanks ACLU, glad you're tackling this one! ~sarcasm~

[Rich Hunt]

92. The ACLU is just doing its job...

But what annoys me is how the ACLU's resources are tied up having to defend these provocateurs.

Surely there is something people as a community can do to protect the privacy of grieving families. I still think the behavior is appalling, legal or not. The fact that they may have the right to do it doesn't let them off the hook morally.

I'm thinking.....what sort of churches are these? Because when I think of funerals I've attended, they've been in residential neighborhoods with not a lot of public property from which to legally stage a "protest". So wouldn't it be only certain funerals where this is "permissable"?

Also, this sort of annoys me, because the whole "free expression" debate distracts from the fact that this behavior is disturbing.

(I was a member and supporter for a long time, but I had to let my membership lapse because I'm unemployed, not because I am angry at them - I just think they're manipulated by provocateurs sometimes, in such a fashion that their real objectives get obscured and their resources get wasted)

[wordpix]

135. "ACLU's resources tiedup having to defend provocateurs"---my beef, too

I only have so much $ available for support of good causes/non-profit orgs. If ACLU thinks the "provocateurs'" cause is worth defending, OK, fine. But I am not going to support an org that is defending these wackos' "right" to disrupt soldiers' funerals.

I had every intention of supporting ACLU this year b/c the org helped our local peace group when our town told us we couldn't protest the war on the town green. Also, I very much support the ACLU's suit against the NSA over their illegal spying for BushCo.

Now, however, I am not going to give them money because they are diverting funds to the wacko funeral disrupters' cause, which I do not want to support.

[neuvocat]

95. The ACLU hates america.

I mean, seriously. Bush has been running rampant with trampling on civil liberties and where were these guys? Running amok over prayer in schools. Bush is still doing so and now we have this.

[Charlie Brown]

96. do a google of ACLU and Bush

You will find a sea of news bits on the ACLU's various battles (at all levels) with the administration's illegal activities (including the police powers, privacy-violations, and illegal funding of religion). They single-handedly challenged the Patriot Act's "gag rule" on librarians, and have been going after the NSA's spy powers almost non-stop since the press first broke the story in December.

To claim the ACLU has been silent on the Administration's mis-deeds is simply dead wrong.

[neuvocat]

100. Even if that were true...

the actions taken by the ACLU in this case have only further eroded their creditability.

[Chrisduhfur]

123. I disagree.

I think it strengthened it. It shows most onlookers that the ACLU truly does have civil liberties as it's primary concern and that it's not simply trying to push some other agenda.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neuvocat]

109. Well that sure didn't take long.

If this is all that you can come up with, its easier to understand why the ACLU is such a failure.

[Tesha]

115. The ACLU may be your last, best hope.

But I guess until it comes around to defending a right
that *YOU* deem important, they're just no good, huh?

I'm starting to lose faith that there is any way of
getting through to people that *YOU CAN'T DENY ANOTHER
PERSON THE RIGHT TO SPEAK* without also accepting
"Free Speech Zones" and all that other Bushit for
yourself.

The speech you deny to others, they can deny to you.

Tesha

[neuvocat]

117. The ACLU has done nothing in the last 30 years.

Unless that is you want to count the emergence of domestic spying. The ACLU has failed spectacularly.

The reality is that all we've gotten is lip service, online petitions and court filings that have done absolutely nothing. Now we have a situation where the ACLU is in fact doing the opposite. I guess your idea of free speech is more important that privacy.

Maybe bullying and intimidation by way of mob rule is acceptable to you but it isn't to someone who wants time to bury their dead. If nothing is sacred then you know that campaign rallies and polling places are next.

The way that the ACLU wanted to defend the rights of Rush Limbaugh-a man who wholeheartedly agreed with voter fraud in the 200 election-is disgusting. Doing the same for a right-wing violent homophobe is disturbing.

And this is supposed to be a matter of principle? Forget it. The ACLU isn't defending anyone's civil liberties. It is starting to let others take them away.

[Exiled in America]

127. That's got to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read.

Yeah, that's a flame. Well deserved.

Please enlighten me on your knowledge of the ACLU's work for prisoner rights and successes or failures with the subject of prisoner abuse in america's prisons.

Please enlighten me on your knoweldge of the ACLU's work in putting down parental consent laws and other anti-choice legilsation year after year after year in states throughout the country (inclduding my own, several years in a row).

Please enlighten me on your knowledge about the ACLU's pro-bono case work for low-income individuals who have been unfairly exploited on the job.

Please enlighten me on your knowledge about the ACLU's direct work nationally and state by state in fighting discrimination through legal challenges and advocacy. The ACLU certainly isn't a failure to millions of idaho women who would have endured the end of low-income health care and anti-choice legilation if it were not for the work of the ACLU. It's ceratinly not a failure to the millions of individual citizens who sought legal assistance from the ACLU when their rights were violated.

I could go on and on and on. I know a little something about this because of where I work.

But you wouldn't know any of these things, because you have no idea what you're talking about. If I'm mistaken, then I expect to see a concrete response to everything I've asked, as well as evidence in support of your rather bizarre claim. The only reason you can blather on without any need to support your remarks and disparage that organization is because you're most likely priviledged enough that you'll never have to rely on them to protect your own rights. But if that's not the case, then reguardless of your ignorant remarks, the ACLU will be there to fight for your civil rights.

Further, its quite telling of the kind of person you are when you say that only people you agree with deserve to have their rights defended. One of the bedrock principles of america is that Rush Limbaugh has rights - no matter how much you or I hate what he has to say. Thank God we're not living in your country, where anyone you don't agree with doesn't deserved the same level of civil and constitutional protections as someone you do agree with. That's pretty scary.

[neuvocat]

131. What a pathetic response.

You have no links. There's no proof to back up or even corroborate anything you've said. Its easy to take apart.

Here we go:

"Yeah, that's a flame. Well deserved."

You have established already that you're falling flat on your face on this.

"Please enlighten me on your knowledge of the ACLU's work for prisoner rights and successes or failures with the subject of prisoner abuse in america's prisons."

They haven't done anything about them in the last 30 years.

"Please enlighten me on your knoweldge of the ACLU's work in putting down parental consent laws"

Same thing. They have done nothing about those either.

"and other anti-choice legilsation"

You mean other than trying to do away with the first amendment zones around abortion clinics? They haven't done anything.


"year after year after year in states throughout the country (inclduding my own, several years in a row)."

So apparently you know so much about it that you don't even bother to mention where you're at.

"Please enlighten me on your knowledge about the ACLU's pro-bono case work"

I see a pattern here. Apparently you have forgotten that the burden of proof is on you to show me what they have done. I thought you were trying to prove me wrong here. Have you gotten that confused already?


"for low-income individuals who have been unfairly exploited on the job."

That's the problem. They haven't done anything for those who are destitute. They want a good case, something sensational that will raise their profile. That's why they fail.

"Please enlighten me on your knowledge about the ACLU's direct work nationally and state by state"
in fighting discrimination through legal challenges and advocacy."

Again they have done absolutely nothing.

"The ACLU certainly isn't a failure to millions of idaho women who would have endured the end of low-income health care and anti-choice legilation if it were not for the work of the ACLU."

Name the case. Give dates and the people who were involved and the reasons for them.

"It's ceratinly not a failure to the millions of individual citizens who sought legal assistance from the ACLU when their rights were violated."

Yes, like Florida and Ohio. Right.


"I could go on and on and on."

You haven't even started yet.

"I know a little something about this because of where I work."

Yes, someplace that we have no idea what it is or where it is located or what it is for.


"But you wouldn't know any of these things, because you have no idea what you're talking about."

Oh here we go.

"If I'm mistaken, then I expect to see a concrete response to everything I've asked,"

Again the burden of proof is on you. Show me the results.


"as well as evidence in support of your rather bizarre claim."

You apparently don't want to listen.

"The only reason you can blather on without any need to support your remarks and disparage that organization is because you're most likely priviledged"

Yeah sure. You know everything about me just because you don't agree with me.

"enough that you'll never have to rely on them to protect your own rights."



"But if that's not the case, then reguardless of your ignorant remarks, the ACLU will be there to fight for your civil rights."

No, that would be Amnesty International. At least they care.

"Further, its quite telling of the kind of person you are when you say that only people you agree with deserve to have their rights defended."

You're right. I guess I shouldn't bitch that the ACLU is going out of its way to offer to help to those who are well to do in life while ignoring calls for help from those who need it.


"One of the bedrock principles of america is that Rush Limbaugh has rights - no matter how much you or I hate what he has to say."

Obviously your conscience is quite clear knowing he gets to walk while others are doing 25-to-life for the same thing. I have to wonder how you can cherry-pick like that and not let it bother you.


"Thank God we're not living in your country,"

I guess you live in Britain. Things are different here in the USA.

"where anyone you don't agree with doesn't deserved"

Its "deserve". You seem to not be living in the present.

"the same level of civil and constitutional protections as someone you do agree with."

Too bad for you I never said that.

"That's pretty scary."

No, what's scary is the right to let someone else badger you and harass you without repurcussions. Stop acting like some sort of addle-minded fanboy who comes into an argument without giving a second thought to what he (or she?) is saying.

[BrightKnight]

97. .

[MelliMel]

99. Is there this much support for free speech when it comes to

anti-choicers protesting outside of clinics, right?

As a note, I support free speech in both cases. I also support hoping for pianos to fall from the sky and take out the protesters.

[slackmaster]

113. If they interefere with other peoples' freedom of movement, then no

I don't support that kind of speech.

[Demeter]

121. Anti-Choice Protests at Clinics Are Hate Crimes, Too

Not protests. Hate crimes against people conducting their private and legal business. I realize that some have difficulty with the concept, but do we really have to descend to the depths that Germany experienced under Hitler to finally acknowledge that there are forms of speech that truly constitute crimes against individuals and humanity in general?

[KittyWampus]

125. Ah, someone else comes up with the relevant comparison. Of course, the law

has said that anti-choice protestors may protest outside women's health clinics- at a certain distance.

However, this solution then paved the way to Bush's "Free Speech Zones" which say "Yes, you can protest, but at a distance".

I've mentioned this before but DU'ers refused to realise that when they attack the Free Speech Zones, they're attacking the same provision that keeps anti-choice demonstators away from the front steps of women's health clinics.

[Demeter]

130. It is Not Appropriate To Equate the Two....Although People Keep Trying

[MelliMel]

133. Why isn't it?

Are you for protesting a soldier's funeral because of your own feelings about the Iraq clusterf***?

[JVS]

104. I don't like it, but that's what they gotta do

[Guaranteed]

107. Sorry, America haters, but to forcibly MUTE somebody, you're

gonna have to make a better argument than "So and so doesn't like it." Even if they ARE the parent of a dead soldier.

In fact, what you're saying goes directly against what that soldier and millions of our other soldiers died for, over the centuries. Your opinion soils their memory.

In any case- yeah. I think you're going to have to come up with something a lot more compelling than it simply being offensive or unpleasant.

[Exiled in America]

118. Free speech doesn't mean "free when we like it."

Good for the ACLU. I appreciate their consistency.

[Exiled in America]

119. There is a better alternative to setting bans on free speech:

You counter the protests and make them look ridiculous.

Taking away someones right to protest in a public place (if they're standing on the sidewalk, it is a public place, whether the actual funeral is private or not) is dangerous - those are the same rights that protect me. It sets a dangerous precident wherein speech people in positions of power don't like can be restricted unfairly.

A better alternative is to do what we did when Fred Phelps came to town. He protested at churches and our community got organized. We turned out nearly 200 people as compared to his little band of 10. We lined the sidewalks all the way around the block of the church, forming a human shield. The people coming to church walked behind us and didn't even have to see the protesters. Along their way, they got all of our love and support - we held signs in counter protest to phelp's group, but we refused to engage them in any way.

Afterwards, many of the church attendees described it was one of the most powerful and positive experiences they had.

Fight bad free speech with good free speech - not by passing laws the shred constitutional protections.

[KittyWampus]

126. "you counter the protests". Well, this is a funeral. So you suggest

the bereaved forget about honoring their dearly departed and turn their attention to the people spouting hate?

IMO, the hate-mongers are:

disturbing the peace
preventing others from practising their religion (in cases where they're trying to hold a service with clergy present)
Harrassing private citizens

[Exiled in America]

128. They are not doing any of those things.

The "berevaved" are the ones that need to be doing anything. Community organizations and concerned citizens were the ones who came together to form a human wall around the block of the church. It was the parishoners who described it as one of the most touching, positive experiences.

The hate-mongers enjoy the same constitutional protections you and I do.

They're not disturbing the peace anymore than protesters whom we agree with.
They are not preventing anyone from practicing anything as long as they are on public property -- are they grabbing people and keeping them from going into a funeral home I think not.
They are not harassing private citizens anymore than I could be accused of harassing private citizens when I publically protest the Iraq War outside of places people are going into, or when I rally in support of immigration. The ONLY differnece is that YOU. DONT. LIKE. THEM. And that's not a sufficient reason for undermining the constitution.

By the way, you're list of reasons why they should be barred from protesting in a public place sounds EERILY FAMILIAR TO ME. Sounds pretty much verabtim like the excuses used by the fanatical right to silence people and groups we call "patriots" for speaking out.

There is a better way to counter the hate. Freedom is only free when its protected when we don't agree. Otherwise its just convenient tyranny.

[KittyWampus]

129. "they're not grabbing people". IMO, interferring with others doesn't

require a physical act such as 'grabbing' someone.

If I am trying to study for a test and you keep INTENTIONALLY yelling in close proximity to me, then you are preventing me from studying even though you haven't physically moved my body from the books.

And conversely :) your reasons for allowing hate-mongers to assualt their fellow citizens unrestrained sounds eerily familiar to Germany's intimidation of Jews in the 40's.

Today, Germany manages to balance democracy and freedom of speech with curbs on hate speech.

IMO, Americans and DU'ers tend to be overwhelmingly Materialists and don't consider adverse effects caused by others unless there is some phyiscal act involved.

[Marie26]

134. Oooo

I'm so conflicted - civil liberties, good; Fred Phelps, bad, bad, bad. If they have laws requiring protestors to stay a certain distance away from abortion clinics, why can't they have a similar law for funerals? This is one time I have to disagree w/the ACLU.