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

[motivez]

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.

I'm split on this because I hate the people and their message but respect the rights they have to do it.

On the one hand, I think they should have the right to protest whatever they want to for whatever reasons they want to. I don't think we need to have laws that restrict what people are allowed to protest, no matter how much we disagree with them. Their ability to do so is one of the foundations of our society, and limiting it here makes it easier to justify limiting it in other cases.

Now, that said.. I don't believe they should be able to harass the families of soldiers who have died and are being buried.. and I think perhaps this could be easily construed as harassment.

So, what's the balance here? Should there be one?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Good for the ACLU. This law is not narrowly tailored at all. However, I don't really get what the article says. Supposedly the ACLU says the law tries to silence free speech based on the content of the message, but in their description of the law, it doesn't say anything about content, just time and place.

[TekDragon]

The ACLU could easily protect our constitutional rights while keeping those ass holes out of funerals. Slippery slope my left nut.

[motivez]

How would they do that?

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

How would they do that?

By realizing that ignoring those peices of shit wouldn't result in a slippery slope that would result in god only knows what liberal tin foil hat theories.

Those people are extremists, and this is an extreme case. Making an exception, especially when the VAST majority of the US wouldn't mind seeing them dead, much less kept away from funerals, wouldn't erode our freedoms.

[motivez]

That's the point though. In our system of Government, the vast majority is not allowed to oppress a small minority.

An exception leads to more exceptions. Once we have justified an exception for free speech that is extremely unpopular, it becomes easier to do so for speech that is very unpopular, etc..

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

That's the point though. In our system of Government, the vast majority is not allowed to oppress a small minority.

An exception leads to more exceptions. Once we have justified an exception for free speech that is extremely unpopular, it becomes easier to do so for speech that is very unpopular, etc..

:roll:

I don't buy your slippery slope crap in THIS situation. This is not like barring flag burning or preventing liberals/conservatives from protesting. This is keeping a dozen or so individuals from doing something which the other 300 million people in the US don't approve of.

[Donkey®]

I find the utilization of 9/11 and things like this by any partisan idiots disgusting. But, it is their right. Just like it is our right to ignore them.

[motivez]

So where's the limit? A dozen or so is obviously not it.

How about 50? 100? 200? 300? 1000? When do you start thinking that denying a United States citizen their constitutional rights begins the slippery slope?

I think you are unable to seperate their message from their right to free speech and protest.

I dislike them and their message as much as you do, but I'm wondering how exactly it's a good idea to allow the Government to deny a citizen the right to free speech guarenteed to them in the Constitution.

Like I said, I think this could be construed as harassment, and perhaps that's a better way to approach it.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

So where's the limit? A dozen or so is obviously not it.

How about 50? 100? 200? 300? 1000? When do you start thinking that denying a United States citizen their constitutional rights begins the slippery slope?

We're not talking about 50, 100, 200, 300, or a 1000. We're talking about a dozen, who are universally hated by the entire rest of the nation, regardless of political affiliation, economic background, or religion.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

Like I said, I think this could be construed as harassment, and perhaps that's a better way to approach it.

Provided they change the punishment for harassment to the death penalty for this one case - i'd agree with this.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

We're not talking about 50, 100, 200, 300, or a 1000. We're talking about a dozen, who are universally hated by the entire rest of the nation, regardless of political affiliation, economic background, or religion.

You don't think that a dozen makes it easier to justify it for 20? and then 50? And then so on?

What if you were one of those people in the future? Would it matter more?

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

You don't think that a dozen makes it easier to justify it for 20? and then 50? And then so on?

What if you were one of those people in the future? Would it matter more?

If I was carrying out extremist behavior that negatively affected the country and was dissaproved by the country as a whole, and with which there could be no possible postive result from, I would hope someone would keep me from continuing.

Tell me, Motivez. How many members are in NAMBLA? I've never asked for them to be stripped of their title and jailed for continuing to speak out. Why? Because they aren't going to schools and harassing children shouting sexual things at them.

[motivez]

Well, as I said, harassment is IMO a better way to go against it. When you attempt to restrict speech however, it brings up a whole host of issues that can potentially be avoided.

I don't like their message and I really wouldn't care if they were restricted on a personal level, but there's a part of me that understands the need to allow and protect the most unpopular types of speech.. because that's the true test of the First Amendment. It's easy to say we have free speech when everyone agrees with what's being said.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, as I said, harassment is IMO a better way to go against it. When you attempt to restrict speech however, it brings up a whole host of issues that can potentially be avoided.

I don't like their message and I really wouldn't care if they were restricted on a personal level, but there's a part of me that understands the need to allow and protect the most unpopular types of speech.. because that's the true test of the First Amendment. It's easy to say we have free speech when everyone agrees with what's being said.

Drag them to Guantanomo and torture them with electricity. I wouldn't give a shit. They're gonna get far worse when they're burning in hell.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

We're not talking about 50, 100, 200, 300, or a 1000. We're talking about a dozen, who are universally hated by the entire rest of the nation, regardless of political affiliation, economic background, or religion.

Tek, you're essentially arguing that it's okay to suppress freedom of speech just this one time because this is particularly distasteful and particularly unpopular. If that was a good enough reason to take away freedom of speech, our constitution would be shit by now. Your argument, despite the attempted new wrapping, is nothing new. People say some version of what you're saying anytime unpopular speech pops up. And you're totally missing the point by saying how many people disagree with these protestors...the more unpopular the speech is, the more in need of protection it is...that's the whole idea.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Tek, you're essentially arguing that it's okay to suppress freedom of speech just this one time because this is particularly distasteful and particularly unpopular.

Yes, and shoot them in their heads while you're at it. Every time I read about them it burns my blood

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Yes, and shoot them in their heads while you're at it. Every time I read about them it burns my blood

okey dokey.

[6SpeedTA95]

I think this is a tough position to be in. As motivez said I hate the fact that they're damn near harassing our soldiers families. But they do have a right to PEACEFULLY protest. I think the cementaries can and should keep them out, I also think that the place providing the funeral services should keep them out and should probably discuss it with adjacent businesses.

If you can't nail them for harassment you can nail them for trespassing.

[TekDragon]

And failing that you can nail them to a wall.