Kansas Church to Fight Mo. Law in Court

[AnOhioan]

KANSAS CITY, Mo. Jul 21, 2006 (AP)— A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals across the nation filed suit in federal court Friday, claiming a Missouri law banning such picketing infringed on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Jefferson City on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by showing up at soldiers' funerals with anti-homosexual signs.

The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps claim God is allowing soldiers, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates homosexuals.

Missouri lawmakers were spurred to action after the church protested in St. Joseph last August, at the funeral of Army Spc. Edward Myers.

More at http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2223276

I am conflicted about this. I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU and think they are a fantastic organization. I despise Fred Phelps though and have to wonder is he really needs carte blanche to spread his message of hate.

[Ian David]

1. Here's how I look at it...

I'm glad The ACLU is defending Fred, but I hope that thee things happen:

1) It costs Fred boatloads of money.
2) Fred and the ACLU prevail, BUT...
3) the court finds the MOST NARROW of circumstances at which Fred will be allowed to protest.

I think that funeral protests should only be allowed under a VERY NARROW set of circumstances.

For example, when a funeral is intentionally made a public forum intended to make a political statement.

And that the court, even under those circumstances, sets reasonable limits on who may protest, how, and when.

Otherwise, every time there is a GOP rally, they will call it a "Memorial Service to Honor our War Dead," and nobody will be allowed to counter-demonstrate.

And The GOP will use dead soldiers as "Dead Human Shields" to stage huge press conferences and rallies that nobody can demonstrate against.

"Hey, let's unveil our plan to abolish Social Security at the funeral of Private Smith! Make sure all the TV cameras are there!"

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. The ACLU doesn't charge its clients

so it isn't going to cost him any money.

This law affects our peace group. We have regular protests at two different locations, both near churches. Even though we aren't protesting a funeral, we are still prohibited from protesting on the day of a funeral.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

2. Well just keep in mind that popular speech has no need of being

protected.

[LiberalFighter]

3. I say no grounds for religious freedom only for free speech

I say they have a problem with limiting the law to just military funerals.

Will they allow protesters at funerals of gays/lesbians that are not military?

What will be the next step? No protesters at funerals of government officials such as Dimwit?

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Good point!

[KansDem]

22. I agree

I find what Fred and his ilk are doing reprehensible. But, when the time comes for Fred to be called home to his maker, I want to have the right to go to his funeral and protest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he has sounded auto horns at funerals for HIV victims(?) I'd like to "beef up" my car's horn using monstrous amplification equipment and tune the horn's interval to a tritone, symbolizing the "devil." How à propos!

[LiberalFighter]

40. Hopefully nobody shows up for his funeral

And nobody means everybody not of the immediate family.

That may have the fullest impact on the family if they find out he didn't have any friends and they don't have friends that would take the time to attend his funeral.

[krispos42]

70. Here, use this one

http://www.hornblasters.com/products/details.php?item=NAK3

Make his bones rattle in the casket! And hopefully cause the soiling of the mourners' underwear.

[atreides1]

4. Free Speech is Free for everyone

Or you might as well do to the Constitution what Bush and his Repuke allies want to do to it.

We may not like what the man has to say, but if we don't defend his right to say it, then we are lost and the Republic is dead!!!!!!!

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[AnOhioan]

5. I agree with you

It is just that Phelps and his gang of bigots churns my stomach everytime I hear of them. Maybe some counter protests at his church need to be organized. Call them out as the bigoted assholes they are.

[annabanana]

12. Does he actually have a "church"? A building where he

conducts services? Or does he and his brood live on a compound in some isolated location?

[xchrom]

13. he has a church.

though the pews are mostly filed with his vile spawn.

[annabanana]

16. Then he should DEFinately be picketed!. . . . . .n/t

[MuseRider]

49. He is

he always has been, we have a group in town who counter pickets him but of course nobody wants to talk about that so the world just assumes we don't mind him.

[kineneb]

18. need protest contingent to show up there

and moon the congregation...after all, they are asshats! Exercize Our Freedom Of Speech Too!

[xchrom]

26. i wish we'd protest more than phelps.

i firmly believe there should be an active on going protesting at the mega churches.

if they are going to attack us{i.e. remember they've been coming to san francisco and kicking up shit, both anti-gay and anti-choice} then we should show up at their places of worship on sundays and make them as uncomfortable as possible -- i.e. gay kiss -ins. or a mass marriage blessing, an impromptu version of a circuit party -- what ever.

but it should have Fabulous all over it.

[nealmhughes]

32. The "church" is in his compound, in downtown Topeka!

Strange that a religious "compound" needs the security of a fence....

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. I live nearby

and I know many people who regularly counter protest against Phelps.

You can see how much of an impact they have had.

[niyad]

7. agreed--even the repulsive little jerk we call phrooty phred has a right

to speech--what he doesn't have a right to is an audience, although I don't know that ignoring him really solves anything. however, I do appreciate the patriot guard riders who go to so many of the funerals, and shield the mourners.

what I am hoping for is a really big tornado that will hit that hate-filled, so-called church when all 50 of his inbred, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging relatives (INCLUDING the lawyers) are there. kharma, anyone?

[Occulus]

43. Let me ask you a question:

We all know shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not an example of exercising one's free speech.

However, is it permissible to ask everyone in the theater if they smell something burning?

-=-=-

That's what we're dealing with here: a very loud, outrageous group of people who are intentionally planting ideas into people's heads, or trying to: ideas which, if embraced by people unbalanced enough, can easily lead to violent acts against other members of the public.

It's not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, true- but it is akin to asking everyone if they smell something burning, implying, of course, that the speaker does.

[PansophicOne]

69. Well you have to think of it like this.

You say that it might lead violent acts against others. Well, if you try to apply that here then you open a new can of worms. What happens when someone says that those shirts like the ones with Bush and the crosshairs may lead to violence. Or even less harsh shirts that may call insult bush or anyone for that matters, aye?

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Free speech is free speech

It isn't about the message. It's about the right to say it.

[rodeodance]

10. yes, well said.

[keopeli]

11. I spoke to Mr. Phelps and watched him protest me. I lived.

If I can tolerate Fred's speech at a parade, it's only because I believe in his right to speak freely.

Any infringement on that right is detrimental to our floundering democracy.

Let him speak. And let him pay the price for his social behavior. Let him become the poster boy for Fundamentalism that he's always wanted to be. Let us be able to put Bush and Phelps in an ad together.

That's free speech too.

Why is this hard? This is fourth grade stuff!

[Solly Mack]

14. When Phelps trekked across the country protesting "gay" funerals

which states tried to create laws banning that?

If it was speech when Phelps protested Matthew Shepard's funeral, it's speech when he protests the funerals of soldiers.

Phelps isn't the only bigot in this matter.

[krispos42]

71. Minnesota did

A few months ago. Ironically, one of the few lawmakers that voted against it was the mother of an Iraq War veteran KIA. Of course it will be challenged and overturned, but until then it is in force.

Frankly, the 400 Patriot Guard Riders who show up at Minnesota military funerals seem to be doing quite well at keeping these assholes away. They pack a lot of American flags and a lot of leather, and Phelps decided to protest in New Hampshire after they showed up at one funeral in Minnesota.

http://patriotguard.org/

The problem is that our patriot duty as freedom-loving Americans is to allow such speech. It can be hard, especially when the speakers are, quite simply, idiots. Proud, willfully and blissfully idiots who think their viewpoints carry the weight of educated, thoughful people. We have to grit our teeth and force ourselved to say "It's their constitutional right."

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
http://www.startribune.com/465/story/415447.html

Sen. Lourey puts aside pain for principle
She didn't give a speech. Becky Lourey merely cast an eloquent vote: No.
Doug Grow, Star Tribune
Last update: May 05, 2006 – 9:50 PM

"I just hoped someone else would vote with me," Lourey said.

66 to 1. But what power there was in her vote.

The push for the law was based on passion, not reason.

On Feb. 23, demonstrators from a church in Kansas showed up in Anoka at the funeral of Cpl. Andrew Kemple, who was killed in Iraq on Feb. 12. The chants of six followers of Fred Phelps were ugly. God, they said, is killing U.S. soldiers because the country tolerates homosexuality.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty and legislators were so offended they vowed to create a law to block similar demonstrations. Lourey was the only senator to oppose the Senate version of the bill in March. The law that came out of conference committee passed in the House 121-2.

Jim Abeler, R-Anoka, and Mike Jaros, DFL-Duluth, opposed the measure, which is expected to be signed by Pawlenty early next week.

Both representatives said that protecting free speech is the central issue, not the bleats of pathetic people like Phelps.

Then there was Lourey, the DFLer from tiny Kerrick, 40 miles south of Duluth, casting that lone Senate "no."

What gives her so much depth in this issue is the fact she understands war's agony. On May 27, 2005, her son Matthew, an Army pilot, was killed when his helicopter was shot down in Iraq.

<snip>

The law is so restrictive that the American Civil Liberties Union isn't going to get involved for the moment. The ACLU believes that before the ink dries on the governor's signature, the well-lawyered Phelps will be in federal court to contest the law, which is vague, and, the ACLU believes, "facially unconstitutional." Not to mention unnecessary.

<snip>

"As it is," Samuelson said, "the state of Minnesota will probably end up writing a check for about $100,000 to Fred Phelps for the privilege of writing an unconstitutional law."

Maybe that's not so much to pay for a lesson in free speech.

[xchrom]

15. speech is regulated -- contrary to what i'm seeing in this thread.

what we're really arguing about are parameters.

i have no problem with regulating this form of protest and depending on what fred morphs into -- i might not mind the next.

[LostinVA]

20. You're correct n/t

[Tesha]

28. My speech today, your speech tomorrow.

The ACLU defends these cases because they understand that
even hurtful, hateful speech is entitled to protection because
if you let anyone draw a line today saying "this speech is okay,
but this speech isn't", then moving the line becomes very easy.

It's a shame many DUers don't understand that.

Tesha

[xchrom]

35. what i understand is that your notion of free speech lowers the bar

for stupid viciousness that incites to violence.

that notion and george bush and admiring george bush and any ilk like him have a lot in common.

[Tesha]

36. When you are gagged in the future, ...

When you are gagged in the future, please remember that I
warned you.

Tesha

[xchrom]

37. all societies regulate speech -- even the most

permissive.

if you live in the united states then you live in a place that is always figuring which speech is which -- but it is regulated.

[Tesha]

68. Political speech in this country is essentially unregulated.

And you want it that way, don't you? Otherwise, might not someone
regulate, for example, "Gay Pride" days?

Tesha

[struggle4progress]

46. Some years ago, I had exactly this argument with a good friend ...

.. who was outraged that I supported the Klan's right to protest. I suggested my friend organize a counter-protest instead of trying to shut them up. My friend did this -- and was delighted when the counter-protesters outnumbered the Klan idiots tenfold.

In my view, the appropriate response to "stupid viciousness that incites to violence" is actively to organize people of goodwill against it ...

[Telly Savalas]

42. Precisely

If speech were unregulated, then I could put a giant Wal-Mart billboard in my front yard, stand in the middle of the street at 3 AM with a megaphone screaming racial epithets, and freely commit verbal sexual harassment against anyone I choose.

[Charlie Brown]

47. no one is arguing that speech is "unregulated"

they are arguing that people cannot be silenced b/c the state disagrees with their message.

Of course there are laws against disturbing the peace and being a nuissance to others, for people who enjoy shouting at 3 A. M. and screaming profanities in a public forum. That's because those actions infringe on the rights of others, and are thus not eligible for First Amendment protection.

The laws Phelps is challenging were passed explicitily to silence he and his followers, which is an incredibily dangerous precedent to let stand, and a blatant violation of Equal Protection.

You could, I guess, argue that Phelps' antics are a public nuissance, but that would be creating an axe that could easily swing your way when the state wants to further stifle dissent.

Phelps and his family appear harmless. There's no point eroding the Constitution because people are offended by his message.

[dogfacedboy]

64. Local law enforcement could easily and quickly

put an end to any Phelps appearance. If any member/members of the family of the deceased were to file a complaint with the local police authorities, Phelps and his crew could be shut down under "disturbing the peace" statutes. Here's how it could work: When the Phelps crew makes an appearance outside a funeral, a police officer can then ask a family member, or possibly the director of the funeral home, or the pastor at a church, to sign a complaint stating that Phelps, et al, are causing a disturbance at their event. The police can then stop Phelps by ordering him to leave or face arrest. This tactic is used regularly by the Chicago Police Dept.,in an effort to disrupt street gang activity. A gang just hanging out on a street corner isn't breaking any laws. However, nuisance complaints from citizens can lead to the gang members being rounded up and charged with 'disorderly conduct'.

[DiverDave]

17. I am utterly amazed

that no one has taken this hate filled mans head off.

Yes, there is the free speech angle, but doesn't common decency come into play at some point?

I really, REALLY would like to see this asshat and his deluded sheep locked up.
But, a good ol ass whoopen, done at several of his protests would suit me just fine.

Consequences, folks, thats what it would be about.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. Yes I am amazed by that as well

I think most of us who have seen his crap here for so many years have decided to ignore him. He thrives on publicity. Fortunately, the local media ignores him most of the time. He honestly gets more coverage on Fox News than he does locally.

[Blue_Tires]

29. because phelps and his ilk are just DYING for

some kind of martyrdom and the already have extreme victimization mentalities....

[MGKrebs]

23. They'll have to be careful with this.

Don't want to make it too broad.

Surely we wouldn't want certain types of free speech near elementary schools.

I suspect much of this ground has already been plowed by abortion clinic cases.

Aren't cemetaries usually private property? Is part of the issue here that military funerals are sometimes held at government owned cemetaries, or do the wackos protest at the entrance to the private facilities?

[Charlie Brown]

24. a law barring demonstrations around schools would be equally unconst'l

and it sounds like exactly the type of thing the right would do to stop pride parades and peace ralles.

I certainly don't support giving them that kind of power.

[MGKrebs]

38. I don't agree. There are limitations.

Communities can decide, to a certain extent, what they will tolerate. Pornography, vulgarity, "streaking", lewdness, are all examples of limits to free speech or expression.

[Charlie Brown]

45. this is speech we're talking about, not lewd behavior

Phelps is not streaking people or engaging in "lewd" behavior, he's simply speaking and displaying signs that promote his point of view. As American citizens, you and he both have this right, or the First Amendment is meaningless.

I'm not sure how I feel about laws against porn and lewdness, but that's a different ballpark. As far as speaking in public goes, the First covers everything, with the possible exception of speech that could lead to violence. It even gives citizens the right to rally for the repeal of "decency" laws, if they want.

This law was passed explicitly to silence Phelps, which, though I don't agree with him, is also a travesty. Equal protection under the law, as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment means every US citizen can speak out on the issue of their choice, including Fred Phelps.

If the state can silence any single person b/c they don't like the message, they can silence you.

[MGKrebs]

48. I'm not saying we don't have free speech. I'm just saying it's tricky.

And I believe many forms of expression are considered "speech" in terms of constitutionality. In fact, I would be surprised if this ACLU suit restricted itself to allowing the protesters to yell or whatever. We may be referring to it as speech, but as you said it is also signs, and it is also assembly.

So you would think that local ordinances governing signage would be Unconstitutional?
You would think that "disturbing the peace" laws would be unconstitutional?

What little I know about abortion clinic rulings is that protesters can protest, but they have to stay a certain distance away. THAT is the kind of gray area I am talking about. Free speech CAN be regulated. We just don't get to say whatever we want, wherever we want, and whenever we want. You can't stand out in the middle of 52nd Street and protest your issue. OK, maybe that's a bad example. lol.

[bluestateguy]

25. The ACLU is so clueless

They should not represent people who do not share the values of the organization, which Phelps and his "church" do not. At a bare minimum the ACLU should agree to represent people and organizations who will pledge to support the ACLU's agenda on other issues in the future. Phelps et al. will not do that. Why should the ACLU go to bat to strengthen the political and legal position of groups and people that, if they had their druthers, would ship all of the ACLU's people off to Guantanamo? Or take Rush Limbaugh, a man who has spent his whole career bashing the AClU, yet the do-gooders in that group went to court on his behalf to shield his medical records. Did Limbaugh thank the ACLU? Did he show them any gratitude at all? Did Limbaugh pledge himself to the group's agenda? Of course not. He just went right back to beating the shit out of them like he always does. I have my priority list, and Rush Limbaugh's and Fred Phelps' constitutional "rights" are not very high up on that list.

[happyslug]

27. because he is the only person who can show a "Harm" do to this law.

Under the US Constitution the Courts can ONLY hear cases where someone has a claim. The ACLU can NOT file against the law if it has NO client that would be affected. Thus you stuck with Phelps. Other people will be affected but they have to show HOW, with Phelps he has a history of doing such protests and thus has a "Cause of Action" when it comes to this law.

Now as to why the law is restricted to Military Funerals, the courts have been more sympathetic to restrictions on the First Amendment if the restriction is narrowly written, i.e. NOT all funerals, just Military Funerals. Thus the authors of the law made an attempt to make it as constitutional as possible by making it as narrow as possible (and against a KNOWN problem, not a theoretical problem). Thus the law has an ability to be constitutional, but Funerals have ALWAYS been used for political purposes. Look at th irish wakes during the Irish Civil War of 1921-1921. Another case os that of the Chicago black child killed and mutilated by Mississippi racist (His mother insisted on an open coffin to show his injuries as a political statement). Thus funerals CAN BE political statements, as while as providing mourning. When people make anti-war or pro-war statements at a funeral is a Political Statement.

Thus the problem with this type of Statute, at what point does a funeral cease to be private and become a political statement? Except for private services, funeral are public that a continuing problem Funerals not only permit the family to mourn the loss, but Friends, and neighbors thus Funerals tend to be public. Thus the problem is where to cut off some opposing a political statement of a funeral (The problem is the most effective way to minimal such political statements in funerals is to leave it go, anything you do is worse, thus the British left the Irish do their protests during their funeral paraders, Mississippi kept quite about the death of the Chicago child).

Thus while I am torn by this statute, I tend to oppose it. First Phelps will die of old age sooner or later and with him his protest movement (Unless he decides it no longer pays to protest and cut out his protest before then), second the HARM such a statute will do LONG after Phelps is gone outlast the good such a statute will do while he is protesting (The statute could be used in any funeral situation even if no body is present, to stop protest against someone like Bush).

[The Blue Knight]

30. I would love to shoot Fred Phelps.

That is all.

[happyslug]

41. He isn't worth it.

n/t

[me b zola]

31. The way I look at it

I don't see it as the ACLU representing the hate-filled Phelps. I see it as the ACLU representing all of our Constitutional rights.

I know it sounds rather simplistic to say it that way, but I really do feel as if it is that simple.

[Danieljay]

66. The Repugs have already linked ACLU with 'liberals'

Now it will become a campaign issue. I can see it now: "ACLU and the liberals sue to allow military funeral protests". It would never be an issue as long as it was "God Hates Fags", but now it will be turned in to a question of so called "Patriotism".

I'm all for equal rights as much as I hate this bastard and his cult, but this will be turned to a anti left campaign issue, big time.

[Rabrrrrrr]

72. Uh..... oh, my God. I can't believe what you are saying.

So, the Consitution is only valid for the people we like? We should only be concerned with the rights of people we agree with?

Pure. Fucking. Bullshit.

Either everyone is protected, or just throw the fucking thing away.

Looks like you prefer to just throw the fucking thing away.

The ACLU isn't a democratic or republican or libertarian; liberal or conservative; christian or athiest or other organization. It exists SOLELY to protect the Consitutional rights OF ALL PEOPLE.

And the ACLU doesn't do these things to get "thanks" and "attaboys" from people. They do it because the Constitution and the rights it upholds is worth protecting IN ALL CASES FOR ALL PEOPLE.

Jesus.

:eyes:

Sorry, but liberal democratic naziism is just as bad as rightwing fascist naziism.

[54anickel]

33. But, but, but the ACLU is a communist organization! It's anti-christian!

It's against churches, and the boyscouts and national security!!! We must stop the ACLU before it completely destroys out great Christian Nation!!!
:sarcasm:

I'll bet some fundie heads are exploding over this - especially if the don't make the Westboro/Phelps link right away...."The ACLU on behalf of a Baptist church" :wow:

As disgusting as I find Phelps and his ilk, I'd have to say good for the ACLU to hold their nose and do the dirty work of saving free speech from the pile of shit Phelps has buried it under.

[insleeforprez]

34. I must admit this is ironic

seeing as how Fred has, at least once, refered to the ACLU as the "Anal Copulators and Lesbians Union."

[FredScuttle]

39. ACLU does a healthy side business in irony

I mean defending a Hall of Fame ACLU-basher like Oxy-Limbaugh (now modified to Boner Pill McLove-Handle) should have cinched the deal.

This is why I give generously to the ACLU every year...they don't waver from their mission, not one iota. One wonders what our party would achieve if it followed suit.

[Rabrrrrrr]

73. Wouldn't that be something? If the Democratic party had as much integrity

and singlemindedness to mission that the ACLU has?

Imagine what we could do!

I give generously to the ACLU, too - nowhere as generously as I wish I could, but I am a happy, joyous and proud supporter of them, precisely because I know I can count on them to defend ANYONE who's rights are being fucked over, even the people that I might otherwise quite happily stand by and not help while they're choking to death.

[FredScuttle]

74. I started giving in '92

when the first Bush asshole in the Oval Office threw around that "card-carrying ACLU member" bullshit, like it was akin to holding membership in NAMBLA. I am a proud card-carrying member of one of the most vital civil-rights organizations in the nation and I dare any mindless zombie GOP scum to criticize me for it.

[HuffleClaw]

44. i think this law is a travesty

as much of a travesty as 'free speech zones'. its presupposition that some (the relatives of dead soldiers) are somehow more deserving than others (abortion clinics for example) is one reason why it should be struck down. on the other hand, that reason could also be used to justify widening this 'restriction' on free speech. its a great example of the 'slippery slope'.

[CornField]

50. I may not always agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your

right to say it.

[Pithlet]

51. kick to combine duplicate.

[Biernuts]

52. ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials

"The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality"

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html>

Edited to conform with DU rules for LBN Subjects

[asthmaticeog]

53. As well they should.

Phelps and crew are scummy, they're evil, they're hateful, and their humanity is warped beyond my ability to comprehend warpedness, but as venal as their actions are, they're not breaking the law.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

56. You are absolutly correct.

Popular speach dosn't need protection.

[jonnyblitz]

57. yup. the only reason this is happening now is because they

started showing up at the soldiers' funerals. They have been doing this for almost 20 years, maybe 15, I do believe.

[asthmaticeog]

61. That long? Wow.

I thought they started with Matthew Shepherd's funeral. I had no idea it went that far back. Yuck.

[jonnyblitz]

62. Randy Shilts, gay author of AIDs epic "And the Band Played On"

his funeral was at the Glide Church near where I used to live in the tenderloin in SF in the early 90's. They were there for that. He also did Clinton's mother's funeral. PLus he turned up in Alabama at a gay bash victims memorial service that a friend of mine attended . He was at the big 1992 gay pride parade in Washington DC. There are many more. The people of Kansas where they are from have been plagued with this crap locally since before the 90's I bet. DUer Muserider lives near him I do believe. I think she has stories to tell.

[Biernuts]

59. I personally favor a very tough federal law that anyone killing

Phelps or his followers shall be subject to a huge fine of exactly $2.95 - plus they be prohibited from paying all federal and state taxes for a period of not less than 5 years and their children shall be required to accept full scholarships at the college of their choice. That would teach them not to fuck with those assholes!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

54. This shows that the ACLU

is for the First Amendment, period. In the past, they have defended Nazis, the KKK, and, if memory serves, even Rush Limbaugh! And yet the rw calls it a "liberal" organization. The only way it could be characterized as such is if you think defending the Constitution is "liberal".

[MrPrax]

55. Well...

I guess the ACLU will experience a 'Skokie Moment' very shortly. Let's hope that the current times are as forgiving.

[Pithlet]

58. Biernuts

Please change the subject line to the actual headline of the article, per LBN rules. Thanks :)

[Biernuts]

60. OK - consider it done n/t

[Pithlet]

63. Thanks.

I also went ahead and combined it with another thread on the same subject. I didn't realize your post was a duplicate when I asked you to change the headline. I'm sorry.

[Placebo]

65. This is just stupid.

x(

[Danieljay]

67. This will be a huge campaign issue for the Republicans. They have already

linked the ACLU with those of us on the left. I can see it now, "Liberals fight for the right to picket military funerals". As if our patriotism wasn't already being questioned.

Notice it wasn't an issue when he was protesting gay funerals, but they will make it a huge campaign issue now.

This is going to be turned against us big time.

[FredScuttle]

75. Only if we let it so...

Who the fuck cares, quite frankly, what the Republicans' November strategy is? Their strategy doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure out....they're running on ANYTHING EXCEPT IRAQ. And energy prices. And Katrina. And government spying on citizens...etc.

I don't give a rat's ass if the GOP runs on this because it will be proof positive that they have nothing else to run on. If they try to pull this shit in an election, the Democratic candidate should repeat the mantra "IRAQ-GAS PRICES-KATRINA-THE MIDDLE EAST-STEM CELL RESEARCH-GOVERNMENT SPYING" non-stop.