Why Not Quit the ACLU?

The ACLU was established to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country not just the ones you deem worthy

 

You're making the mistake of thinking that the ACLU agrees with, likes, or cares about the WBC. The ACLU is not stupid, and is not fooled. But they're not defending the WBC, they're defending the first amendment.

 

You're right. The ACLU is not stupid. Just indifferent (in regards to the deliberate harm caused by the WBC). Perhaps it's time for the first amendment to be amended?

QP

 

Please do not think that Westboro Baptist has any friends on The Right.

Foolish protests in cemeteries whilst military families are putting their fallen warriors to rest is no way to win any friends.

Yet, Westboro remains vastly important to The Movement, as a vehicle to portray America as irredeemably homophobic and racist; it can be a poster-child for fundraising and party building.

Westboro can be David Duke. So it is important to blow a little oxygen their way and this may be what the ACLU is out to accomplish.

After all the American Right is less homophophic than a generation ago, (many of them being outed) and in other instances being joined by the Log Cabiners of the merchant class who seek the protection of their assets over sexual politics.

 

Wbc is exercising free speech. They are not causing harm. If the boot fits, wear it. Presumably those at the furerals being protested do not think the boot fits, so they should disregard it.

I'm not willing to let 20 asswipes take away the most fundamental rights (religion and speech) that make america a workable country. Everything is well and fine, until you lose the right to speak. As soon as you can't talk about the problems, the nation is fucked.

If you think that limits, according to the sensibilities of those in government, should be placed on free speech, your presence on this very controversial free speech site is highly hyporcitical.

 

They are causing psychological harm. And that is something that is not easily healed. I've read all the books about Matthew Shepard's life, death, and memorial. And his friends and family should never have been subjected to such utter cruelty. God Hates Fags. Matthew Shepard Is Burning in Hell. The message was loud and clear. Why do you think his friends ultimately had to use their own bodies (while wearing huge angel wings) to form a barrier, so the mourners would not have to see all the homophobic banners?

And I am no hypocrite. You clearly misinterpreted my tongue in cheek statement about amending the first amendment. Did you not notice the wink at the end of the sentence?
Curiouser and curiouser...

QP

 

Your statement about amending the first amendment does not seem very tongue in cheek, if you're arguing to ignore it. That's an even quicker way to ruin it, AND any other legal protection that people have.

You keep saying how bad they are. I get that. But in order to give the best shot to speech you agree with, you must allow speech you do not. It is fundamental to an accountable government. WBC thinks the government has doomed us all to hell, and their right to believe that, and to speak about that, is important. Trying to stop a few jerks with signs at the expense of free speech, is like using a boulder to swat a fly on your windshield.

Even if you miss the fly, you still stand a pretty good chance of royally fucking the windshield.

I don't care what WBC is doing, I care about the potentially massive collateral damage of trying to stop a few jerks with rainbow signs.

 

Right. I'm sure the first amendment will be ruined because I told the OP it was cool to rip up his ACLU membership card. This is reactionary thinking at best.

And good for you that you don't care what WBC is doing. This speaks volumes.

QP

 

Your point is moot. You are arguing legal theory and 'what ifs' when in fact the DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. As of right now and since Oct 16, 2012 the court agrees with my and QP's take on this matter, not that of the miguided ACLU.

Appeals court: Town can restrict funeral protests

Tuesday, 16 Oct 2012
JIM SALTER Associated Press

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- A St. Louis suburb can enforce a funeral protest ordinance aimed at preventing picketing by an anti-gay Kansas church, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. ...

The Manchester ordinance allows for protest activities but with limitations. Among them: Protesters are not allowed within 300 feet of a funeral or burial service while it is occurring and for one hour before and one hour after.

Eighth Circuit Judge Diana Murphy wrote that the ordinance "survives First Amendment scrutiny because it serves a significant government interest, it is narrowly tailored, and it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication."

My whole point in starting this thread was whether I should remain a member of the ACLU, which does a vast amount of good nationally in protecting freedoms of expression but occasionally makes what I consider insensitive boneheaded decisions on what battles to fight.

I thank QP for seeing my point about the WBC. This is not about some smartly dressed lawyers in a sterile courtroom, this is about a disgusting group of psychopaths who attack ppl at their most vulnerable in the real world. This is at least ACCORDING TO ONE COURT AT THE MOMENT, not about freedom of speech being curtailed but about protecting real ppl with real grief from these asswipes.

They are free to have a godhatesfags Website, they are free to carry their hateful signs in the streets - this is what meets the First Amendment requirements. They are just not free to disrupt solemn moments of grieving while ppl put their loved ones to rest.

Now, Roorshack let's get real. Assuming you have any loved ones, what would be your honest response if they were murdered or had died in battle and you were at their funeral when these asswipes showed up with placards and shouting about how fucked up that person was and how glad they are that he was murdered or killed in battle.

Honest answer, no platitudes about "potential" massive damage to free speech rights.

 

You don't think having been a card-carrying member of the ACLU since 1986, I do not understand this?

I have often cited the classic ACLU defense of the KKK to parade their hate-speech in the streets. I expressed it as "I do not agree with what you day but will fight to the death for your right to say it" (Attributed to Voltair -but not his words).

That said, I will not belong to any group unquestioningly. I have ditched three already this year because they strayed from their mission statement or showed bias of which I did not subscribe. (Veterans for Peace, Human Rights Campaign and Special Olympics)

I guess I am best as a "an army of one" and perhaps should drop all my affiliations. The only 3 left are the NAACP, SPLC and ACLU. Ironically, SPLC calls WBC a hate group and ACLU takes up their banner in court.

 

I understand the problems with precedence and absolutes; and this has always been where I've had a problem with the law. Life is very circumstantial.

I think it's horrible when the government infringes on free speech, and I think it's our most important freedom promised to us by the government; but there is no way I can justify what the WBC does nor can we risk them setting a precedence of abusing this freedom for emotional bullying and monetary gang.

They have used their genius scheme to make a mockery of nearly every state court, and countless man-hours and tax-dollars of state and federal court.

We must find a way to close this loophole - without attacking general freedoms.

 

The problem is trying so hard, which is wasting money and giving them the attention they crave.

The problem is not with laws with more room for intrepertation, the problem is creating a system where the wrong person could end up doing the intrepertation. And giving an inch often results in the government taking a mile.

Why can't we accept that they're sorry pieces of shit, and will do anything for attention, and the worst thing anyone could do is give them attention?

Free speech is one thing, but intentionally indoctrinating children with hate and insanity is abuse, as I've said, an ultimatum needs to be given: CPS needs to monitor them very closely, they shouldn't need any reason beyond the public displays of child abuse the church makes, they need constant home visits, and they need to make it known that the children will be taken if they are involved in hateful indroctrination, public or private.

Many much better parents have lost their kids, with no explanation or redress given. They need to stop the church from simply making members, so that if children are involved in it that they are removed. Then the church would have to recruit adults, which has happened with ONE family, EVER, who joined the church after it's inception.

Again, free speech is fine, even contriversial public free speech, free religion is fine, even fucking crazy hateful religion, but when it's systematically twisting the minds of children from birth to make them the next generation of hateful lunatics, something must be done.

 

It's well-accepted if you ask me - what I can't accept is that we let them. I can't accept that they are getting away with abusing grieving people and goading them into suing, so they can make money.

I wonder if the local governments are afraid of WBC's legal prowess and power, or are afraid of the controversy and publicity that would ensue.

 

S.Hale........the very stance of ACLU is to aid those deemed un-worthy.

Perhaps if W.B.C. Had friends anywhere the ACLU wouldn't bother; but it seems that Fox News is targeting them, and the hackers Annomous also.

Didn't The ACLU support the right of KKK/Nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois , they marched a Jewish neighborhood. was back in The Eighties. Hale...I know that you are old enough to remember. I,m up there too.

 

No no no no no no NO!! I do not want to live in a country where freedom of speech is a lie. Unfortunately, there are some bigot assholes in America! But taking away someones right to peaceably express them self, (On any issue,) is immoral. Freedom of speech is a Human Right!!!

 

No no no no no no NO!!
The Phelps are not "peaceably" expressing themselves.

They are attacking grieving ppl at a most vulnerable time in their lives. In effect disturbing the peace of a solemn occasion in order to draw attention to themselves.

That is the whole issue with the municipal restriction on their insulting the deceased at the time of a funeral. They are free to express their "human right" at an appropriate time and place.

And my whole point is, they are also free to appeal the decision of the court that agrees with me, but they should pay for that themselves - not the ACLU, which I support. (for the moment)

 

it still doesn't give you a right to take away their freedom of speech. Even though I don't like what they said, I will defend to the death their Right to say it.

 

I'm just saying that, it's with regards to certain freedoms. You guys are insinuating that you would somehow abridge the freedom of speech, and that's clearly against the constitution.

 

I'm not insinuating that I would abridge the freedom of speech. I am in agreement with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal that said. "The ordinance survives First Amendment scrutiny..." So, apparently in these legal wonk's opinion the WBC does not have a right to harrass grieving ppl at a funeral under the guise of freedom of speech.

I just hope the ACLU does not pursue this further in the courts or I will feel free to quit supporting them after a quarter century. Are you a member? There may be other members who are troubled by this and may quit as well. If you are not a member, you may want to join to protect freedom of speech.

 

Today I saw a bunch of "no-resist" signs or some stupid shit, apparently you have no fourth amendment right if you get pulled over tonight.

So, while I don't think WBC should be prohibited, I'm much more worried with actively fighting practices such as "on-call" judges, who will sign a warrant for your blood if you won't submit to a breath test, SIMPLY because you would not submit. This is where the ACLU should be putting their money.