ACLU sues to aid gay-bashing, slain-troop-family-harassing Church

[Green Lantern]

LINK

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

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.

The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps say God is allowing troops, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gay men and lesbians.

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

The law bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. Offenders can face fines and jail time.

A number of other state laws and a federal law, signed in May by President Bush, bar such protests within a certain distance of a cemetery or funeral.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message. It is 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's daughter Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the church in Topeka, Kan. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."

Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said, "We're not going to acquiesce to anything that they're asking for in this lawsuit."

The suit names Nixon, Gov. Matt Blunt (R) and others as defendants.

Their misguided view that the 2A is NOT an induvidual right notwithstanding, the ACLU just lost the slim snowball's chance I'd EVER join them! 

ACLU and these Westboro extremists can hide behind "free speech" all they want!  But libel and slander are STILL illegal. So is disturbing the peace. So is communicating threats. So is HARASSMENT!

It wouldn't take too much imagination for the local authorities at these funerals to run these monsters in for at least SOMETHING, and allow the mourners to actually lay their loved ones to rest in a RESPECTFUL environment.

[Perd Hapley]

Alright folks, let's get out our melee weapons and start snarling at each other. 

[Green Lantern]

Hey, I got an idea:

NC's draconian CCW laws say I can't carry at a funeral...I think I'm seriously gonna contact the ACLU to complain about THAT and see what they'll do for me!

[Ezekiel]

Alright folks, let's get out our melee weapons and start snarling at each other.

(sigh)  I've decided against it.  Let the courts figure it out.   

[BryanP]

ACLU and these Westboro extremists can hide behind "free speech" all they want!  But libel and slander are STILL illegal. So is disturbing the peace. So is communicating threats. So is HARASSMENT!

Okay, I'll bite.

First off, I can't stand Phelps and his crap.  Let's be clear on that.

However, if what they're doing constitutes libel, slander, disturbing the peace, communicating threats and harassment, then they should be charged under those laws.  There is no need to pass new laws if existing laws address the situation.

If what they're doing *doesn't* constitute those crimes, then yes, it's a free speech issue.  The first amendment isn't there to protect nice cuddly speech we all like.

[wingnutx]

I just want to point out that this guy was a fundraiser and electoral delegate for Al Gore in the 88 primaries.

I love dropping that bomb on my lefty friends, and showing them the pictures of All over at Fred's house having punch and cookies.

[BryanP]

Fun.  I'd like to be able to show that to friends as well.  Can you link proof and pictures?

[vaskidmark]

ACLU and these Westboro extremists can hide behind "free speech" all they want!  But libel and slander are STILL illegal. So is disturbing the peace. So is communicating threats. So is HARASSMENT!

Okay, I'll bite.

First off, I can't stand Phelps and his crap.  Let's be clear on that.

However, if what they're doing constitutes libel, slander, disturbing the peace, communicating threats and harassment, then they should be charged under those laws.  There is no need to pass new laws if existing laws address the situation.

If what they're doing *doesn't* constitute those crimes, then yes, it's a free speech issue.  The first amendment isn't there to protect nice cuddly speech we all like.

More melee!  

You have all fallen for the red herring, or gotten lost in the smoke and mirrors.

The lawsuit does not complain about a law that prevents these folks from doing whatever it is they do (notice how I avoid all emotional reference to their acts?), but about a law that prevents them from doing it at a time contemporaneous with the funeral.

Let's say you were opposed "Illinois Nazis" but the law said you could not protest against them from one hour before their rally/march until one hour after their rally/march.  Just how meaningful would your protest seem, under those conditions?

IF there are valid concerns that the proximity of two opposing groups will cause a breach of the peace, or that the activity of one group will actively interfere with the lawful and peaceful activity of the other group, there is a probability that laws creating buffer space will be held as meeting constitutional muster.  Thus we have "protest pens" and parade permits that impose restrictions of routes.

BTW - since these protests are planned in advance, why are there so few municipalities requiring parade permits?  [It was a rhetorical question.]

stay safe.

skidmark (who needs the ACLU to fight the MO law so he can continue to have APS)

[wingnutx]

Fun.  I'd like to be able to show that to friends as well.  Can you link proof and pictures?

http://www.lcrga.com/archive/200010251159.shtml  <--pictures

Any history of Phelps that goes back to the 80s will mention it.

Remember, this was back when Tipper Gore was on the Oprah show warning parents that music would turn their kids gay.


Southern Poverty Law Center mentions it in their info on Phelps.

[Standing Wolf]

The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps say God is allowing troops, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gay men and lesbians.

Christian Taliban, I guess.

[wingnutx]

Taliban had an army. Phelps has a bunch of tards with picket signs.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The ACLU simply wants to support this peculiar method of undermining the war.

[wingnutx]

I don't think this does a very good job of it.

[Eleven Mike]

The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps say God is allowing troops, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gay men and lesbians.

Christian Taliban, I guess.

Yeah, because saying that God killed people for sinfulness is just exactly like killing them yourself.  Because ugly outdoor demonstrations are no different from having and using real power to enforce a heavy-handed legal code. 

[Target Farget]

one bunch of america haters cushying up to another.

[Perd Hapley]

Alright folks, let's get out our melee weapons and start snarling at each other.

  My point being, how many issues do we have here, to use as vehicles for emotion? 

1.  Liberty v. license
2.  The intent, meaning and past and present interpretations of the First Amendment.
3.  Whether Westboro can be controlled by current laws or if new laws are necessary or desirable. 
4.  Comparison/contrast of Westboro with other religious groups/hate groups, as well as tyrannical regimes. 

Play nice.

[Stand_watie]

Fun.  I'd like to be able to show that to friends as well.  Can you link proof and pictures?

Left to right: Fred Phelps, Jr., Tipper Gore, Betty Phelps, Al Gore

[Green Lantern]

ACLU and these Westboro extremists can hide behind "free speech" all they want!  But libel and slander are STILL illegal. So is disturbing the peace. So is communicating threats. So is HARASSMENT!

However, if what they're doing constitutes libel, slander, disturbing the peace, communicating threats and harassment, then they should be charged under those laws.  There is no need to pass new laws if existing laws address the situation.

If what they're doing *doesn't* constitute those crimes, then yes, it's a free speech issue.  The first amendment isn't there to protect nice cuddly speech we all like.

I disagree on the need to pass new laws.  Sure, run the monsters in if they DO show up and do it.  But passing a law that's designed to PREVENT these insane "protests" from happening at ALL if to the benefit of BOTH sides.  Though I doubt they had the interests of the cult (in retrospect, it's probably blasphemy to call them a "Church") in mind when they wrote the laws, remember...

You make a living poking a hornet's nest long enough, sooner or later you're gonna get STUNG!

Look at it this way.  There are already laws that say a sex offender will be punished if he does something like move in next door and then molests my nephews.  But do you think for a second I would protest if the state government passed a law that said sex offenders can't live within 10 miles of a child in our state???  Sometimes measures to prevent save everyone a lot more grief than measures to PUNISH.

I'm actually amazed that no one has tried to either beat some sense INTO, or the devil OUT OF, these people yet.  NOT that it would be right, fair, or certainly not LEGAL.  But when you've lost a loved one, I know firsthand that you don't always CARE what is right, fair, or legal.

I agree that the cult has a right to SAY what they think.  Just the act of saying it does not bother me.  It's HOW they do it!  Shouldn't people have a right to lay their loved ones to rest in a respectful environment?

On "less meaningful" issues -
-----Can a guy claim "free speech" when a movie theater owner throws him out for yapping on his cell phone during a movie?

-----Can a student claim "free speech" when he gets detention for talking to his buddies while the teacher is doing a lecture?

-----Could *I* claim free speech if I started quoting scripture on love and tolerance on the street in front of Phelps' house...via a megaphone...at 2 in the morning?

As I type this, I realize that maybe the local law enforcement SHOULD have been more "gung-ho" in putting these monsters behind bars, if only for disturbing the peace.  Then maybe these laws wouldn't have been needed.  But can you guess WHAT would have happened if the good guys used the existing laws to rain on the cult's parade?

Who wants to take bets that the ACLU would have sued the LOCAL authorities on the same grounds of stifling the "free speech" of people who's sole purpose is to pour salt on the wounds of mourning families?!?!?



I know the ACLU has the ability to "turn away" cases, it's how they shun the 2nd Amendment.  The fact that they DON'T have enough compassion or just common SENSE to tell the Westboro cult to get bent should say all we need to know about their character.

[MechAg94]

In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message. It is 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 didn't think that law limited the "content" of the message, but the "Location".  I don't think the govt is required to insure that a protestor's message is in a good location.  The Supreme Court has already approved limitations on abortion clinic protestors.  Why would this be any different?

There are limitations on protestors from going INSIDE the White House to protest, but no one seems to care about that.  Certainly, a protestor's message would be much more effective if they got to stand in the daily press conferences, but they are not allowed in there.  I don't see the difference here. 

Also, I would think the families could work with the funeral home to make it a private ceremony or keep these people off the property.

On the ACLU though, I would think they would have the sense to pick and choose their cases better.