Interesting, no challange to the law that has been on the books in Indiana for a few months now. Is the Ky law being challanged at the state or federal level? I'm not sure whether Indiana and Ky are in the same circuit so it makes me wonder if they're looking for a sympathetic jurisdiction to challange one of these laws in order to establish a precident.
Could the ACLU be any more horrid?
Yes they could.
The ACLU is fast losing it's once somewhat respected reputation. About time.
Could they get any more horrid? I guess they could and they will. However once I saw them protecting the "rights" of the NAMBLA child molesters, I just don't know if you can sink any lower.
While I do not agree with these people protesting at funerals, freedom of speech means freedom of speech. How does their act conflict with anyone else's right? While their actions are in poor taste, lack judgement and are out and out kooky does not stop the ACLU from contesting laws that limit our constitutional freedom. Oh I know the Constitution is just a piece of paper but it was written to protect the rights of the minority opinion. That is what the ACLU defends and will always defend. I don't understand why you "less government conservatives" are always for more government when you disagree.
Agreed with Patricks.
Having actually been present for a Phelps love-in in Fort Collins a few years ago, I can say they are a revolting, sickening lot of inbred weirdos.
That, however, doesn't mean they don't get to speak their minds in public. We are far better off letting these idiots positively motivate individuals like those who show up to shelter the families than we are denying a distasteful group their rights.
I agree, Andy. They are the best arguement for the opposite side. On the other hand, what side is opposite these nutsos? Their logic makes no sense.
How do they conflicet with someone else's rights???
Do you even READ the post before you comment?
Call me crazy, but I think people have a right TO GRIEVE FOR THEIR LOVED ONE AT A FUNERAL without anyone harrassing them.
Good Lord.
This is a prime example of what is wrong with liberalism. Everything is ok, there is are no limits. Even if practically everyone on both sides agree.
Call me crazy, but I think people have a right TO GRIEVE FOR THEIR LOVED ONE AT A FUNERAL without anyone harrassing them.
They have a right to grieve, and they have a right to be free from threats of bodily harm.
All you do by changing laws to protect the families is empower these idiots and convince them they are right and unjustly persecuted. In the long run, you will achieve exactly the opposite of what you hope: you'll have more idiots, not fewer.
This is a prime example of what is wrong with liberalism. Everything is ok, there is are no limits. Even if practically everyone on both sides agree.
So the liberals who agree aren't really liberals then, given that this is a prime example of what is wrong with liberalism?
It's not often I see someone contradict their own argument in one sentence, but you managed it. 
I think your paintng with an awfully broad brush if you consider these protestors "liberals". These nuts are ultra conservative and I realize that most conservatives don't share their views or at least do not approve of the way they have chasen to express them. The fact is "Democracy is messy" and all speech is protected, not just ideas that the majority agrees with. I suspect that the liberal lawyers at the ACLU find the positions of their clients detestable however they are defending our constitutional freedom of speech.
I don't understand why you "less government conservatives" are always for more government when you disagree.
I almost missed this.
To the best of my knowledge, conservatives want less FEDERAL government. This is a state issue and that's where it belongs.
I am ceratinly for less Federal Government, but I'm not anarchist!
I've also been watching this play out, because I'm afraid that laws like this set a standard and may be used in the future against pro-life folks who pray or protest in front of abortion clinics. It's not like the pro-abortion groups haven't tried to twist laws to suit their purposes before.
I'm also curious as to the differences between Indiana and Kentucky's laws on this, and what's triggering the ACLU challenge here.
Bigdog,
For the record the side opposite these nutso's is generally referred to as "liberal" or "progressive". Liberals have a long standing tradition of tolerance and respecting the rights of individuals.
Paul and Andy,
I was not referring to the protestors as liberals or was I referring to both sides as liberals or conservatives.
I was referring to both sides that comment here. Which, imo, are varied degrees of each.
I stand by the statement. Most of the time liberalism is very different from those that call themselves liberal. Sometimes it isn't.
Paul,
Explain to me HOW these people's rights over ride the rights of those who are attending their loved one's funeral?????
Paul: You wish.
How is their freedom to be an asshole being denied ? They are allowed to protest, but they have to remain a certain number of feet away. They can be an asshole to their black heart's content there. Buffer zones are routinely approved of in re. politicians and conventions, and even abortion clinics. Why not funerals ?
Explain to me HOW these people's rights over ride the rights of those who are attending their loved one's funeral?????
Because there is no right to not be offended; there is a right to free speech.
Assuming the cemetery is a private operation, the easiest market-powered solution is to have the burial far enough on the grounds that the protest is no big deal, and the owners refuse the protestors entry to their land.
Buffer zones are routinely approved of in re. politicians and conventions, and even abortion clinics. Why not funerals ?
Or, more appropriately, why conventions? Unless there's a justified concern for the safety of the innocent, then two wrongs don't make a right.
Sparkle,
Congress shall make no law respecting......abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
Unfortunately(or furtunately) in our society no one has the "right" to be protected from unpleasant or even hateful speech and it is not the gov't role to protect us from ideas that are deemed too disturbing or upsetting. I don't think it's the gov't place.
However I don't think ther is a jury in the land that would convict a mourner if they cracked one of these knuckleheads in the mouth or worse. I for one would cheer.
First, Congress did not make this law. It is a state action. Second, it does not deny them their right to be an ass. They can do so, but may get cited with disturbing the peace.
andy does have one good point ... this nebulous right to not be offended rears its ugly head in speech codes, identity politics, etc. I guess each side shows their selective concern over freedom of speech.
and don't even get me started on McCain's disdain for freedom of speech.
Kyrie
I stand corrected. I missed the state statutes.
There are laws that you can not offend they are sexual harrassment laws but they need to be tested in court, in my opinion. If the funerals are in public then people have a right to show up and speak their mind. Perhaps president Bush could just ask the wackos to stop as a favor.
Andy - would you consider these axtions to be peaceful assembly ?
Andy - would you consider these axtions to be peaceful assembly ?
I would need all the details on their funeral protests. When I stopped by their anti-gay protest, they only raised their voices when challenged by others, otherwise they stood there with their hateful signs and more or less "talked" their message.
patricks - Unfortunately, even if President Bush asked, today's Democrats do not seem to listen to him very much.
JD,
States cannot pass laws that are uncontitutional. You are absolutely correct, can be arrested for distubing the peace if they are creating a distubance however standing in public with a sign cannot be considered creating a disturbance.
Bush would be asking the wrong people, these knuckleheads are ultra conservative Christians.
I have met these asshats first hand, and they did not just stand there holding signs.
WRONG. Phelps ran for office as a Democrat. I believe he even held a fundraiser for algore. Nice try though ...
I have to bw honest ... I have no problem with the aclu standing up for these sad excuses for human beings. when it comes to the first amendment, they seem to be pretty consistent. does not mean I think they are right ...
No. No. This isn't about free speech or being offended.
This is MORALLY wrong to intrude on a funeral.
You guys just don't get it.
People have a right (or should) to attend their loved one's funeral without harrasment. And THAT is what this is. It is NOT FREE SPEECH.
I can't even believe I am having this conversation.
Buffer zones are routinely approved of in re. politicians and conventions, and even abortion clinics. Why not funerals ?
JD | 05.02.06 - 3:28 pm | #
First of all, Buffer Zones have not been thouroghly vetted by the courts. In New York, the city was found guilty of having illegal "buffer zones" around the Republican Convention, and was required to pay damages to each person arrested for violating these "buffer zones".
Secondly, in limited cases, a security interest can override one's right to free speech, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater, or being allowed to stand next to the President during your protest. If the restrictions are narrowly tailored, and the state can show an honest security interest, these types of restrictions on speech are allowed.
At military funerals, there is no "security" interest.
These people have as much a right to make asses of themselves as the Hell's Angels do to drown them out. Either way, it's not an issue which the government should be involved in. If you want a peaceful private funeral, have it on private property.
And RWS:
Once again, it is not the government's job to legislate morality. Laws are the minimum acceptable standards by which you are allowed to live without the state punishing you. Your personal moral standards (and those of almost everyone else) should be higher than this minimum.
Of course it is morally wrong. Nobody here disputes that however the gov't is not in charge of enforcing morals.
Sparkle,
I am quite sure that if this guy or his followers committed the slightest infraction of any existing law at any funeral he would have been arrested immediately.
Is the ACLU acting immorrally by defending the rights gauranteed to every citizen in this country throught the Bill of Rights, which was required by many of the signers of our Constitution before they would agree to be bound by it's terms?
Is it "horrid" to defend the freedoms which allowed this country to become the most powerful nation on earth?
The ACLU is questioning the constitutionality of a law, the fact that you disagree with the actions of their clients has very little bearing on the constitutional questions they are raising.
So why can't a business turn someone away for being black? That has no "security" purpose either. Discrimination? Well, let's call this discrimination against the mourning.
But why not discriminate? Oh wait. I know. BECAUSE IT IS IMMORAL.
Will you freakin liberals get off your high horse and admit that the govt enforces morality every dang day.
I honestly can't come back to this thread.
You guys have succeeded in making me sick to my stomach.
I hope to God you guys are never in charge again.
I was starting to lean to the left a bit, and then jandrew showed up and reminded me how wrong I was.
These people are pissing on the graves of dead soldiers. they should feel fortunate that disturbing the peace is the toughest charge that can be thrown at them.
The mourning are not a "protected" class of citizens. People can not be discriminated against on the basis of age, sex, race or religion in certain businesses that are open to the public. The reason such discrimination is illegal is because only Congress has the right to regulate things which effect interstate commerce, and people have the right to travel freely among the states according to the constituion. If businesses such as restaurants and hotels are refusing to allow certain people to stay there based on race, religion or to a lesser extent age and sex, then they are violating Federal Laws enacted to encourage growth in the economy and freedom of people to move around the nation to find work and spend vacation dollars. It has nothing to do with "morality".
These rules do not apply to private clubs such as country clubs and other organizations where the "public" has no interest.
If you can find a reason to ban protests in public areas (which is a much more direct and obvious violation of the first amendment) which is not based on what you believe is right, but rather based on some "good" for America as a whole, then these laws may have a shot. The State will be arguing that these laws are Constitutional, but not because they are necessary to ensure equal rights to a protected class. Just becuase the ACLU filed a suit does not make the law unconstitutional at this point (kind of like how Just because some guy at the Dept. of Justice decided that FISA was overbroad does not make it unconstitutional).
There are limitations to the freedom of speech all over the place. Nobody is saying that they cannot show up and act like jandrew, all they are saying is that at times, there are consequences for your actions.
Wouldn't it be more effective for someone to simply take pictures of these people and post them on the web as the ass&$#@s who show up at military funerals protesting.
Once their pictures are spread around the internet they may find it a little more difficult to get hotel rooms, groceries, and many other things that most of us can do without being hassled.
Why does the government need to get involved?
oh, for f-ing sake, enough already. how hard does one have to practice to be such a pedant ?!
Wow I'm sure RWS did not see this coming.
JD, there are lots of conservative democrats and lots of liberal republicans. Some people are one issue party members and voters. I think President Bush could appeal to mr. Phelps sense of Christian morality. Perhaps his mere presence at one funeral would make Mr. Phelps think twice, or perhaps Mr. Bush could send one of his secret service agents out to speak to Mr. Phelps.
Of course, this is one of the very few times when the ACLU will defend a "religious" group, although I doubt you could find any real religion that would want to be aligned with Phelps & crew.
And the more I think about it, the 1st Amendment does NOT protect "fighting words," and I would say the protesters are definitely trying to provoke a fight.
For once I agree with jandrew! I don't see the need for the government to step in and do anything. In fact the government needs to step totally away. Wherever Phelps and his group go to protest, the local cops should just tell them, "terribly sorry, but we can't spare any officers to protect you folks today, so you're on your own!" Then let's see how provocative the "protesters" would be without the men & women in blue to defend them from outraged citizens!
One of my lifes experiences shows me there's a simple solution, recind the law in Ky and let the chips fall.
Once at a local bar I had to listen to the owners drunken loudmouthed kid until I heard enough, I punched him in the mouth, I only hit him once but he shut up... for a while. I was arrested for simple assult, had to spend a weekend in jail and pay a $100 fine, no court costs back then. About a month and a half later I ran into him at the other bar in town, he was just as drunk and obnoxious there too, and for some reason thought he had gotten the better of me the last time we met. Until I mentioned that the first punch only cost a weekend and $100, the rest are free and the next time I was going to get my monies worth. I guess I violated his constitutional right to free speech, but he didn't seem to want to discuss it, so I guess he didn't mind. Afterall he could have defended that right if he chose to.
I don't think it would take much more than a fat lip to send a handful of disrespectful homophobes back home, but having a law on the books might just be enough to stop one of them from getting hurt, especially in some parts of Ky.
This is MORALLY wrong to intrude on a funeral.
You guys just don't get it.
I completely understand your point of view. I just happen to think it's a betrayal of principles (or would be for me). Many immoral things, depending upon whom you ask, are perfectly legal. Legal and moral are not the same thing.
I hope to God you guys are never in charge again.
I voted for Bush last time, so I guess you're hoping the Republicans lose... or are you just painting with yet another broad brush?
Of course, this is one of the very few times when the ACLU will defend a "religious" group,
They only need to intervene when a religious person or group is being treated in an unconstitutional manner. In a country that is largely Christian, however, the idea of the persecuted Christian is laughable, unless one waters down persecution to be virtually meaningless.
As for the rest of Garry's comment, it's nice to see how some are in favor of giving up their civility to challenge the obviously uncivilized. Something about staring into an abyss...
freedom of speech means freedom of speech
Unless I say something you don't want to hear.
Campaign finance reform. Fairness doctrine?
It's not absolute you ninnys. I can't park my car in the PUBLIC street in front of your house and blare 50-cent without getting arrested for DISTURBING THE PEACE.
God you people are such dumb asses. Andy, jandrew, I'm talking to you.
Ok, how about a normal run of the mill Methodist screaming epithets at a 17 year old girl headed into Planned Parenthood, 6 inches from her face. That ok?
Wouldn't it be more effective for someone to simply take pictures of these people and post them on the web as the ass&$#@s who show up at military funerals protesting.
Yeah, I'm sure MORE media access would fix Phelps right up.
Any of you think the ACLU is gonna come protect me when I get fired for looking at a woman at work and saying "hey, nice tits".
I wouldn't even yell or hold a sign. Isn't my expression protected?
f'n' idiots. Normally I can take your crap, but you are for crying out loud defending the rights of Fred Phelps. AND in the same breath attempting to distance yourself from him. "oh, I don't AGREE with him but he has the constitutionally protected right to do that, yeahp".
Dave,
I hope you can see the difference between you cracking one of the Phelps' in the mouth and the gov't cracking down on free speech. I'm all for cracking heads but I don't want the gov't to have any authority to restrict speech. First you may want to check out this families history. Apparently this is how they earn their livings. They are mostly lawyers. They provoke fights and then they sue. Can you say jury nullification.
I'm surprised the ACLU has time for this. Aren't they busy with the very important duty of fighting to take the words "Christmas Break" off of every small town school district calendar because even though it is an official holiday, it is just so wrong and offensive? I just hope they don't get distracted from this very important service they're doing for us Americans.
*eyeroll*
God you people are such dumb asses. Andy, jandrew, I'm talking to you.
DiT, when you feel like working on your reading comprehension, go back and take a look at what I said in regards to whether or not it would be peaceful assembly (the short answer: I need more information).
Further, yes, I'm defending the rights of Fred Phelps. As despicable as he is, he's has rights. There's absolutely nothing contradictory in that view. It's rather sad (and telling) that you think there is.
One more thing: it looks like the Kansas bill on the same topic is about right.
Negotiators added language making it illegal for protesters to make any noise or diversion that "disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of a funeral." That wasn't in either the House and Senate bills.
A key feature was acknowledging exceptions to the 500-foot buffer zone for streets, sidewalks and other public forums. the bill also makes it illegal to obstruct or prevent the intended use of a street, public sidewalks or other public forum.
Of course, if public spaces are exempted, then just allowing private landowners to police their own property seems just as simple an answer (and the right one).
Paul, when did I ever advocate cracking Phelps or his ilk in the mouth?
Didn't happen.
andy, I rarely feel like spending much time on what you write, what I reacted to was this
Assuming the cemetery is a private operation, the easiest market-powered solution is to have the burial far enough on the grounds that the protest is no big deal, and the owners refuse the protestors entry to their land.
Which is dumb. I'll grant you I reacted more strongly to jandrew's comments, which are much dumber. Yeah Fred has rights. Does he have the right to park in front of your house with the hip hop turned up to 11? The answer is no.
That you didn't address that, is telling.
ok, to amp it down a bit, you stupid ACLU apologists,
just between you and me and the fencepost, us guys, how much longer do you think Sparkle is gonna let me get away with saying "tits"?
Does he have the right to park in front of your house with the hip hop turned up to 11? The answer is no.
That you didn't address that, is telling.
No, he doesn't.
He can, however, stand in the street with a sign saying "God Hates Fags" and speak in a conversational tone until such time as the authorities perceive him as a threat to the populace.
I've been Googling for details of the Phelps protests and so far all I see is that they showed up with a bunch of hateful signs. As I said before, if someone else has more, point me to it.
P.S. I'm sorry you think that private landowners making decisions rather than Big Daddy Gubmint is dumb. But then I suppose it's silly to expect much from today's so-called conservatives.
I'm on RWS's side. No one should have to tolerate offensive behavior. Ban it.
Personally, I find Catholicism to be deeply offensive. There should be no public displays of Catholicism. Sadly, I have to commute right past a Catholic basilica every day. It should be bulldozed.
P.S. I'm sorry you think that private landowners making decisions rather than Big Daddy Gubmint is dumb. But then I suppose it's silly to expect much from today's so-called conservatives.
Not as silly as projection.
Your point seems to be that Phelps has the right to peaceable assembly, unfettered.
That's just not so.
Now before you overreact and project more, keep in mind jandrew's comments were much more retarded than yours. k?
Your point seems to be that Phelps has the right to peaceable assembly, unfettered.
That's just not so.
On public property when presenting no threat to others? Sure, why not?
Now, the law may not allow him to do so, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to do so. If you think it does, then that's an entirely different philosophical discussion on the origin of rights, one that has been argued far better and more extensively than either you or I could do justice.
Dave in Texas,
It was Dave who wrote about a punching a guy in the mouth. Sorry for the confusion.
You are correct, there are limits on free speech. Generally, commercial speech is not protected. You can't threaten anyone, defame anyone, harass or menace anyone. You cannot advocate a crime or incite a riot. However you are free to offend. That is what sets us apart from those who riot over cartoons of Allah. Between you, me and that fencepost I think Sparkle finds the word "tits" the least offensive part of this whole discussion.
Hmmmm.. by Ms. Sparkle's theory, the anti-choice nutballs should get the heck away from the clinics. Women have a right to confidential and private health care, right?
Oh -- and where were you Ms. Sparkle when Phelps and his crew were protesting the funerals of young gays and lesbians? Phelps has been doing this for years and this is the first time that state legislatures have done anything about his antics. It was OK when he was bothering Matthew Shepherd's family? The hypocracy just astounds me.
(though I agree that the 1st A. protects his hateful speech)
Andy,
You asked for more info on what Phelps and his ilk do at the funerals.
Here you go-
http://www.smithsophian.com/
medi...mithsophian.com
http://ap.brainerddispatch.com/p...7/
3822194.shtml
http://www.decaturdaily.com/deca...s/
060430a.shtml
I pulled these from the news section on his webpage (much as I feel sullied for going there).
They don't just stand there and talk conversationally. They SHOUT at grieving families to the point that the patriot Guard Riders were set up to be both a physical and sound barrier.
Why cities don't enforce the disturbing the peace laws already on the books I don't know.
Kyrie - thanks. If they are disrupting the peace, then I agree that current laws should be enforced rather than passing new ones that seek to curtail any offensive speech.
Kyrie - thanks. If they are disrupting the peace, then I agree that current laws should be enforced rather than passing new ones that seek to curtail any offensive speech.
You're welcome!
I think part of the problem comes in because these folks have a history of fiing lawsuits whenever their 'right' to disturb the peace is infringed upon.
How do you get the municipalities to enforce the laws already on the books?
My Harley was louder than 20 of Phelp's folks.
Are roaring Harley's any less annoying at a funeral?
It is my understanding that the local ABATE chapter had spoken directly with the family prior to the event, and had their approval. So, apparently to them, yes, it was less annoying.
On second thought, is it even humanly possible for the melodious rumble of a Harley V-Twin to be annoying ? A blasphemous thought, if there ever was one !!!
Fred's gang was actually close to home a few weeks ago.
and boy, did they maintain their distance and a LOW profile. Not on the route, not within earshot or sight.
I'm thinking they're not as stupid as they appear.
To answer your question, Dave, I think you probably get to say "tits" two or three more times before you have probably exhausted your quota. I'd switch to "hooters" after that.
Are roaring Harley's any less annoying at a funeral?
When they are there with consent of the family?
You betcha!
Probable already been mentioned here, but needs to be mentioned often, Phelps is a registered Democrat.
tits
Commenting by HaloScan
