ACLU Sues on Behalf of Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps

[catbert836]

and his Westboro Baptist Cult.

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.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU claims the wording of Missouri's ban seeks to limit the group's free speech based on the content of their message. They are asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and to issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced, which would allow the group to resume picketing.

"I told the nation as each state went after these laws that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps' daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the Topeka, Kan.-based church. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."

More--> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Funeral_Protests_Lawsuit.html

Ugh. :yoiks:

[LiberalVoice]

1. You shouldnt be upset about this.

The ACLU fights for freedom. Whether they agree with Phelps or not. You should be proud.

[catbert836]

5. I'm conflicted

over whether Phelps' right to free speech deserves to be protected. He's a wife and children beater and a deranged lunatic who should have been locked up a LONG time ago.

[Tesha]

15. If you think your right to speech deserves protection then...

If you think your right to speech deserves protection then
you *MUST* conclude that Phelps's right to speak also is
deserving of protection, odious though his speech may
be.

Because when other groups hear us speak (against, e.g.,
Bush), they find our speech odious too.

Tesha

[catbert836]

20. I know.

[zonmoy]

25. While phelps ilk does more than enough to confirm my beliefs in gods

malevolence I don't believe that he or other theophilic nuts should be silenced any more than I would want theophiles to think that maltheistic thinkers should be silenced.

[Monkeyman]

2. Ugh is right

[China_cat]

3. That's as repugnant as when they defended the KKK

But what they are really doing is defending the constitution. I just wish it wasn't so hard to accept this as a defense of all my other rights that this administration wants to do away with.

[Deja Q]

9. And Rush "dopehead" Limbaugh too...

[CGrantt57]

4. Well....

As much as I despise that Phucker Phelps, he is right on this one.

And the ACLU is right as well.

What Phelps and his "followers" are doing at the funerals is in the worst conceivable taste.

However, it ain't against constitutional law.

Missouri is wrong on this one.

[catbert836]

7. If they keep it up...

I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are killed or seriously injured by outraged citizens. I feel tempted to do something along those lines myself sometimes, even though Topeka isn't anywhere near where I live.:grr:

[Lerkfish]

6. that's the two-edged sword of the ACLU

they defend civil liberties, even of scum. I think that's the whole point.

Personally, I think Fred Phelp's org is vile. But do I then have the right to restrict them? I dunno.
If you follow that to its logical conclusion, then antiwar protestors could have specific laws passed to prevent us from protesting the war, because someone else finds it vile.

My history teacher in high school, put it this way " Freedom of speech is not freedom to choose who gets to speak "

[catbert836]

That's true...

but the members of the WBC (Westboro Baptist Cult) has not been prosecuted for assault, battery, disorderly conduct et cetera for many years because all of them are lawyers.

[Lerkfish]

11. I was unaware of that. Can you elaborate on that?

I don't know about assaults, etc. I only knew about the protests.
regardless, though, I don't think that has bearing on the unconstitutionality of the law just passed.

[catbert836]

12. Here's a couple of links...

Most of the assault was back in the day, against people closely connected to the church or Pastor Fred. He is also a known beater of his wife and his children, at least when they were growing up. Disorderly conduct is obvious, it is the charge on which most of them have been arrested, but the Topeka DA almost always refuses to prosecute because of the family's extensive legal tradition.

You're right, it doesn't have any bearing on the constitutionality of the law. It does serve to emphasize what a despicable person Fred Phelps is, and what a sorry predicament his family and the other "congregants" are in.

http://www.baptistwatch.org
http://www.addictedtohate.com

[Lerkfish]

13. thanks for the links!

Its hard to keep track of all the vileness and corruption these days. It makes one's head spin.

[catbert836]

14. No problem.

[Catch22Dem]

8. Take comfort in this

The same organization which is representing pehlps and his insane troupe of fuckjobs, also fights for glbt rights all over the country. Phelps and his fucked up daughter are not oblivious to this fact and have likely complained about the ACLU on numerous occasions. If they win this suit, they'll have done so on the backs of the ACLU and they'll have that hanging over them forever. Kinda funny, eh?

[Deja Q]

10. I doubt they'd care and continue doing what they do best:

Manipulating people.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. Actually, that impresses me

and means the ACLU really believes in the First Amendment.

[nealmhughes]

17. Good. The more noxious publicity they get, the greater chance of them

getting an old fashioned Alabama ass whuppin'.

I dare one of the Phelps set to picket a private funeral anywhere around the Tennessee Valley. I doubt their police protection would be very adequate.

[SPKrazy]

18. They Defend Everyone's Rights To Civil Liberties

Limbaugh, NAMBLA, KKK, etc.

Doesn't meant they support any of them, they just defend everyone's civil liberties

[Orrex]

19. This is further proof of the integrity of the ACLU

They actively defend persons who actively attack the them, even as the ACLU is derided for being a far-left out-of-touch group of liberal wackos. Hell, even when the defend Limbaugh and his ilk, they're still attacked by the Right, who then claim that the ACLU has only taken Limbaugh's case (or whoever's) for the purposes of establishing cred with the Right.

The fact that the ACLU still continues to defend the rights of those who hate it should prove beyond doubt that their stance is the difficult and admirable one.


Is there any equivalent Rightwing group that similarly defends the rights of all citizens? I sure as hell can't think of one.

[NMMNG]

21. It's disgusting, but they're doing the right thing

I still feel like :puke:.

[beam me up scottie]

22. More proof that those of us on the left support free speech for everyone.

Just like the ACLU, we're true patriots who support the constitutional rights of all.

[varkam]

23. Stories like this remind me of why I like the ACLU so much.

The ACLU is often referred to on various media outlets that will remain unnamed as a terrorist organization or a decidedly liberal group. Cases like this, in my mind at least, show that the ACLU is fair and above partisan hackery as they are willing to go to court to defend one's right to spew vile and divisive rhetoric. Kudos to the ACLU for being even-handed in it's defense of individual civil liberties, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall on. Kudos to the ACLU for going to court to defend Phelp's right to spew vile and divisive rhetoric, as I'm not sure if I could stomach defending the likes of him.

Just another reminder that freedom of speech protects all speech - even that with which you vehemently disagree.

[saltpoint]

24. I understand your "Ugh" on this one. Phelps and his bunch are an

intemperate and divisive pack of rabid nutbags.

But the Constitution gives them a right to their free speech, even I don't like it much, even if I'm appalled by the content, in the same way it gives me a right to read a banned book in the public library.

I back the ACLU on the legal angle here. But I'm betting your "Ugh" is directed at the Phelps group's conduct.

[Crunchy Frog]

26. I think that Fred Phelp's "speech"

crosses the boundary into harrassment. I do not think that harrassment should be a protected form of speech. I think that the ACLU is wrong on this one.

[cosmik debris]

27. Your argument correctly addresses the issue

The test that the courts generally use is from a decision about 100 years old in which the Supremes ruled that "The Constitution was not intended and can not be used to protect behavior that endangers the public welfare". I believe that it was Learned Hand who wrote that, but I would like to be corrected if I am wrong.

This is the test used to decide many free speech and Second Amendment issues. So your point about harassment is spot on! And that is why we have courts. I hope we can keep them for a little longer.

[cosmik debris]

28. I did a little research

and I found some interesting stuff. Decide for yourself it it applies.

Gitlow v. New York
268 U.S. 652 (1925)


Threshold issue: Does the First Amendment apply to the states? Yes, by virtue of the liberty protected by due process that no state shall deny (14th Amendment). On the merits, a state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger. The rationale of the majority has sometimes been called the "dangerous tendency" test. The legislature may decide that an entire class of speech is so dangerous that it should be prohibited. Those legislative decisions will be upheld if not unreasonable, and the defendant will be punished even if her speech created no danger at all.


Whitney v. California
274 U.S. 357 (1927

In a unanimous decision, the Court sustained Whitney's conviction and held that the Act did not violate the Constitution. The Court found that the Act violated neither the Due Process Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause, and that freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment was not an absolute right. The Court argued "that a State. . .may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances. . .tending to. . .endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow by unlawful means" and was not open to question. The decision is most notable for the concurring opinion written by Justice Brandeis, in which he argued that only clear, present, and imminent threats of "serious evils" could justify suppression of speech.

Schenck v. United States
249 U.S. 47 (1919)

During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.


Question Presented Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.

Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which ruled that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day. Some now see the Schenck argument to be mistaken, contending that pamphleteer was more like yelling fire outside a building to prevent people from entering than it was trying to encourage people to stampede out.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. So it's a good thing that this has made it to the courts.

An organization committed to the principle of free speech is defending the Phelps, as it should.

But the harassment argument should win. The ACLU can't and doesn't win them all.

[cosmik debris]

30. I'm not so sure

see the last paragraph of my research post.

"directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day"

[catbert836]

31. I just had a thought

If anti-abortion protesters are allowed to scream and protest women entering women's health clinics, then why should the Westboro Baptists be barred from protesting military funerals? Both groups obnoxiously protest and harass people who are going through very difficult times.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Catbert is right.

Anti-abortion protesters ARE allowed to picket clinics with restrictions on their proximity to the clinic and/or its patients.

I've seen Phelps' gang in action here and they are not, IMO, harassing (in the legal sense) the mourners.

The police were summoned to make sure the ghouls were kept from getting too close to the mourners.

[Exiled in America]

33. Good.

I appreciate their non-contradictory unflinching commitment to what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the first amendment.

Missouri's particular solution to the fred phelps problem is a poor one, and it treads too far across civil liberties. By the way, a large part of the AC LU's argument in this case is that the poor quality of the Missouri ban leads the door wide open to sweeping and unintended license to ban all kinds of peaceful first amendment expression.

I'd be happy to talk about ways to better protect the families of dead soldiers, keep funerals peaceful and free from hurtful disruption, and so on. But we need to approach these solutions in ways that don't exchange one bad problem for another, that don't allow very badly written overly-broad laws to be passed, and don't weaken civil liberties for all in the process.

Sincerely
A proud aclu employee, aclu idaho affiliate :)

[TRRepublican]

34. A number of groups have come up with a better way...

to protest Fred and his gang. One of the most prominent is the Patriot Guard, which is a group of motorcyclists, which will provide an honor guard (often of more than 100) for any military funeral. They provide a simple, respectful group unless Fred, ... show up. In that case, they make sure that some of the louder cycles are near Fred and that they check out their engines whenever Fred and gang start to protest, and effectively drown them out. The Patriot Guard only show up if the family specifically invites them.

There is also one or two groups of truckers that do a similar thing. In their case, it is more a visual shielding.

I think that these are better solutions than what generally are unconstitutional laws regarding political speech. And from what I can see, there is about a 98% probability that Missouri's law will be overturned. Anything that goes beyond the setting up of a buffer zone (like those around abortion clinics) is likely to be overturned.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Orrex]

36. God's not a smoker?

I can get behind that, I guess.