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

[mshcherbatskaya]

I'm just waiting for the counter suit along the lins of inciting hate crimes against homosexuals etc.

You can stop waiting. Phelps and his organization have been the subject of more lawsuits than I can count. There's a reason he sent his kids to law school, so they don't actually have to pay lawyers. But like I said, he loves being sued, loves, loves, loves it, because it makes him the center of attention and gets him more publicity.

"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

They are doing this for the purpose of inciting lawsuits and attracting publicity.

Don't confuse Phelp's organization with an ordinary church. It's a cult. They aren't Christians, they are cultists whose leader's cultural weapon of choice happens to be the Bible.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

That article is three years old...

This.

 

[jasoncyrus]

I'm just waiting for the counter suit along the lins of inciting hate crimes against homosexuals etc.

You can stop waiting. Phelps and his organization have been the subject of more lawsuits than I can count. There's a reason he sent his kids to law school, so they don't actually have to pay lawyers. But like I said, he loves being sued, loves, loves, loves it, because it makes him the center of attention and gets him more publicity.

Don't confuse Phelp's organization with an ordinary church. It's a cult. They aren't Christians, they are cultists whose leader's cultural weapon of choice happens to be the Bible.

I meant the ACLU being sued...

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Its the principle of the thing. Freedom of speech and all that should be for everyone. Not just for those whom have something you want to hear. These people are sick, depraved, and completely idiotic. But they have legal right (so far) to do what they do.

This is truth in a democratic society, anyway. A people aren't truly free until the voices of even their ''worst'' are heard.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

I'm just waiting for the counter suit along the lins of inciting hate crimes against homosexuals etc.

You can stop waiting. Phelps and his organization have been the subject of more lawsuits than I can count. There's a reason he sent his kids to law school, so they don't actually have to pay lawyers. But like I said, he loves being sued, loves, loves, loves it, because it makes him the center of attention and gets him more publicity.

Don't confuse Phelp's organization with an ordinary church. It's a cult. They aren't Christians, they are cultists whose leader's cultural weapon of choice happens to be the Bible.

I meant the ACLU being sued...

Ah, no, the gay community (and I spent years in ACT-UP and Queer Nation back in the day) knows the ACLU has their back [http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/].

 

[Naeo]

I'm all for free speech and do not support the war at all but jesus people? A funeral? Have some fucking respect for the dead. We all know they don't respect the living.

Oh god. This.

I'm against the war, too, but have the utmost respect for the troops- personally, I'd never risk going out and getting killed overseas or worse, abducted (maybe tortured) by the enemy.

And like one of the first posters said (cba to go back and find the poster's name), they should have some fucking dignity and stop protesting the people who died so they could protest their funeral.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

Its the principle of the thing. Freedom of speech and all that should be for everyone. Not just for those whom have something you want to hear. These people are sick, depraved, and completely idiotic. But they have legal right (so far) to do what they do.

WRONG! Libel is when you say or publish anything accusationary that is without merits or simply falsified information. These people have no right to do what they do. They deserve prison.

Unfortunately, Freedom of Speech as defined in the Constitution has been redefined by the conception of Freedom of Expression, which is NOT a right given by the Constitution.

Defamation, libel, and slander are a matter for civil court. You can't get arrested for it, but you can get sued, which they have been.

Furthermore, since their opinions are based on their proclaimed religious beliefs, they have some legal protection on the grounds of Freedom of Religion. They also aren't protesting anything about the funerals themselves. They protested outside the funerals of miners who were killed in a mine collapse, not because the miners were gay, but because supposedly God is punishing America for allowing homosexuality. So really, the one that they are slandering and defaming is God, and he has not, to the best of my knowledge, brought charges against them. He will probably wait until they are in his jurisdiction and then do it.

 

[Virgil]

There's freedom of speech and there's freedom to bury your dead without having to read signs saying "God hates fags".

As far as I'm concerned, they can hold their demonstrations all they want so long as it doesn't interfere with the funeral proceedings in any way shape or fashion. ... Remember - your freedom is only protected when your actions are not impeding upon the freedoms of others. This principle has been upheld on multiple occasions in the Supreme Court.

Like freedom of speech, freedom of religion means you are free to follow whatever religion you choose without persecution from the government. It doesn't mean that everyone else must respect your beliefs and privacy. No matter how much of a backwards asshole someone has to be to picket a funeral, if they follow the legal process, demonstrate on public land, and are not likely to cause harm to others, they have every right to be there.

Freedom of speech, and I mean the real right that it represents, not the "I can say anything I want" bullshit most people assume it means, is a very valuable and unique right. It's the right of peaceful assembly. It is a driving force for change. And it's something that a lot of other people in the world wish they had. The ACLU understands that protecting this right is very important, and sometimes means defending the rights of very stupid and ignorant people.

This is one of those times. Once you start letting your rights get eroded it's really hard to get them back. Someone can be morally wrong and legally correct, but that doesn't mean we should start legislating morality.

One thing I'd like to note here is that the Missouri lawmakers must also have known that they were passing a law that was likely to be unconstitutional. If you look at the actual text [http://www.house.missouri.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills061/biltxt/truly/HB1026T.HTM] you'll see that they passed the same law worded in two different ways, with the second version going into effect when the first is "finally declared void or unconstitutional".

 

[sneakypenguin]

My only problem with the ACLU here is that Westboro's picketing is disturbing a private event. Otherwise I support them no matter who they're defending.

Hmm well if your protesting say cigarette companies meetings in Seatle(just an example) you would be disturbing a private event. Same with most any protest.

I'd much rather people I can't stand have the right to say stupid things wherever, than have that right limited and when a time comes I want to protest something, find it banned.

 

[senataur]

"In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message."

Seems to me the case is doomed to fail based on this. The law appears to prevent protesting based on the location/event, not the content of the protest. With that in mind it would seem to me that this law my well be entrirely constitutional, so long as similar laws do not extend the scope of funerals to say, government buildings and functions.

What do these Westbro nutters hope to achive by all of this anyway?
One would imagine that the families of servicemen would largly be quite conservative and antigay to begin with. Seems they are protesting to the wrong people, preaching to the converted as it were.

 

[Altorin]

Its the principle of the thing. Freedom of speech and all that should be for everyone. Not just for those whom you dont want to hear. These people are sick, depraved, and completely idiotic. But they have legal right (so far) to do what they do.

But at a funeral? I think thats the major issue here.

Free speech, but within reason. Its the same reason defamation and slander and harassment laws exist.

no, no "within reason"

at least as far as the government is concerned. Private citizens can stand up to people they don't like, and if actual laws are broken (assaults, threats, etc), then the police should become involved.

But no one should ever be arrested for saying anything, anywhere.

All that being said, if some anti-gay protesters picketted my brother's funeral, they wouldn't be there long.. but I would never want them to be silenced by the government.. I'd do it myself, and I'd have the right to.

 

[cobra_ky]

That article is three years old...

This.

and yet i can't find anything about this case being resolved. i'm really curious as to who won this.

I hate the ACLU, I hated them way before this, but this is just ridiculous! If you didnt hate these guys before you do now, check the story here. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html]

don't let these retards ruin your opinions of right wingers

don't let these retards ruin your opinions of the ACLU, either.

 

[A random person]

My only problem with the ACLU here is that Westboro's picketing is disturbing a private event. Otherwise I support them no matter who they're defending.

Hmm well if your protesting say cigarette companies meetings in Seatle(just an example) you would be disturbing a private event. Same with most any protest.

I'd much rather people I can't stand have the right to say stupid things wherever, than have that right limited and when a time comes I want to protest something, find it banned.

Generally I'm with you. I was just trying to provide a reason against the ACLU for the sake of argument.

 

[Shock and Awe]

"In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message."

Seems to me the case is doomed to fail based on this. The law appears to prevent protesting based on the location/event, not the content of the protest. With that in mind it would seem to me that this law my well be entrirely constitutional, so long as similar laws do not extend the scope of funerals to say, government buildings and functions.

What do these Westbro nutters hope to achive by all of this anyway?
One would imagine that the families of servicemen would largly be quite conservative and antigay to begin with. Seems they are protesting to the wrong people, preaching to the converted as it were.

Actually I saw a video when i guy was "trying" to reason with them when he said he didnt like what gays were doing either, but the ***** screamed something like " NO! You love what there doing!" Ill post it if I find it.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

That is one infuriating article.
Come on! Live and let live. I can't believe just how intolerant some people is.
You can't go and picket a funeral, there's people there who are suffering for the loss of a loved one. I doubt their god would approve of such disrespectful stupidity.

These Westboro Baptist Church people are nothing but ignorants and I hope the ACLU loses so they get some time off in jail to think about how idiotic they are. ¬_¬

They have their right to freedom of speech.

But being a dick about it I doesn't wouldn't make people like your side MORE. It would in turn do the opposite.

The right to freedom of speech only extends so far. At some point you begin to infringe on the rights of others. People have the right to honor their dead, especially those who died for their country. Those Westboro bastards definitely defile that right. If any of my brothers died in the service and their funeral was picketed, I'd want to ruin sue them as well.
Edit: Misread the title, and thought they were suing the church. Well this just makes me hate them even further.

I am not supporting them, but as long as they were complying with noises levels, street is the public property, and the right to assemble and freedom of speech protect them.

 

[Haydyn]

When is this going to stop?

People who are against Gay rights: Whether it is part of your religion or personal beliefs, not everyone agrees with you, or has the same religious beliefs. If two people want to be together, why not let them? Just because they were born the same gender doesn't mean they can't love eachother.

People who are Pro Gay rights: Being homosexual is nothing to be proud of. There is no reason people should be proud of their sexuality. Pride is a very dangerous thing. Just because someone is homosexual doesn't make them any better or less than anyone else.

In general, the problem is that the states used the term "marriage" to discribe unions of a man and woman outside of religion. Marriage had always been affiliated with religion. Imo, gays should be able to get married. Marriage is not longer just for religion.

On topic, people should not be protesting at funerals. That's only shooting yourself in the foot by making your side look bad.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I'm not trying to sound mean or stupid or anything, but where is it spelled out that people in the US have the right to honor their dead?

As far as I know it isn't. This is most likely because the forefathers had some ethics and common sense, unlike most people who live in the country today. Just like the new internet laws that are now coming out, this is something that may need to put into law as the times change. It was never written, but it was always common sense...until now at least.

Alright, I was just wondering if you were talking about actual law or just common decency.

 

[Danny Ocean]

When is this going to stop?
People who are against Gay rights: Whether it is part of your religion or personal beliefs, not everyone agrees with you, or has the same religious beliefs. If two people want to be together, why not let them? Just because they were born the same gender doesn't mean they can't love eachother.

I don't give a crap, but I thought I'd point this out.

Whether it is part of your beliefs or not, not everyone may agree with you, or have the same beliefs. If they think it is wrong for you to be together, why not let them? Because they were born the same gender means that it is impossible for them to love eachother.

See how similar those are?

Now. I need sleep.