Did we miss this earlier?

[jonny]

I'm sure the ACLU would co-defend Jerry Falwell also for his freedom of religious expression in Jerry's finding for the cause of 9/11.

The ACLU will defend a church if the church helps it promote its agenda. The ACLU had no problem representing the UU's when they sued for the right to protest against the LDS church on LDS church property.

 

[Mathematician]

What exactly is the ACLU's agenda, besides from protecting the civil liberties of both sides, and everywhere else in between? I've listened to people call the ACLU an atheist organization for years, and yet here it is protecting the rights of one of the most whackiest conservative churches out there, when other people won't.

Before someone blasts off a "it's all about defending free speech" line, that's absolute garbage. Why doesn't the ACLU defend my right to say that I have a bomb on a plane? How about yelling fire in a crowded theater? This isn't about free speech. This is about disgracing soldiers.

Disgracing someone doesn't mean you get your freedom taken away. Those comparisons don't really add up, either. In both cases you're intentionally endangering the public. Here they are trying to make a point. Any "conflict" that comes from their protests is avoidable.

Plus, we're also talking about the right to assemble, and a lot of other freedoms, not just free speech. Even radicals deserve their rights.

 

[nutshell]

Why does the ACLU oppose Christmas?




They're just jealous that they can't find three wise men and a virgin among their own ranks!!!




hahahaha




kidding aside, I was actually looking at possible internship opportunities with the ACLU...I thought it might be a good way to widen my view of things, but I don't want to end up with a career there so I probably won't pursue it.

 

[jonny]

What exactly is the ACLU's agenda, besides from protecting the civil liberties of both sides, and everywhere else in between? I've listened to people call the ACLU an atheist organization for years, and yet here it is protecting the rights of one of the most whackiest conservative churches out there, when other people won't.

Disgracing someone doesn't mean you get your freedom taken away. Those comparisons don't really add up, either. In both cases you're intentionally endangering the public. Here they are trying to make a point. Any "conflict" that comes from their protests is avoidable.

Plus, we're also talking about the right to assemble, and a lot of other freedoms, not just free speech. Even radicals deserve their rights.

The reason that we have laws is because there are some things that we shouldn't have "the right" to do. I get so sick of people talking about rights without any mention of responsibility that I feel like my head will explode.

 

[Booko]

Might this be filed under disturbing the peace?
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=557&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

You would think so. But that may depend on the decibel level or somesuch.

 

[Booko]

I think if this were to happen at a funeral where I was in attendance. Those picketers would be leaving with a lot less limbs than when they came.

I could always buy another motorcycle, come by and pick you up, and we could go "greet" them. Wear your wings.

It might just scare them enough to get them to run away.

 

[Jaymes]

Why doesn't the ACLU defend my right to say that I have a bomb on a plane? How about yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Because you don't have that right. Check out Brandenburg v. Ohio.

 

[Pah]

[/COLOR]You hardly have a choice when to have a funeral, Pah. Either you go to it, or you miss it entirely. It's not like you can reschedule it.

I was thinking that a funeral itself was the option. Cremation is certainly an option. Missing a chance to pay last respects and provide closure is opportunity lost. But the Constitution, for example, does not grant that there is a right to be able to take all opportunities presented. It does also not grant "right" status to several other things long held in private tradition. I'm not against funerals but only comparing them to rights of a human being. The "right", if there was one, would have to belong to the deceased.

I'm not advocating that an obnoxious display of hatred be accepted but that is must be fought by means other than law.

There's an issue of simple decency and compassion in the case of someone who's mourning that I think deserves greater consideration than, say, a case of some group deliberating the fate of international finance.

I agree.

Of course, and I think we've at least tried to make a decent balance here. I would not say the same for groups wishing to have a protest on public property when political parties meet. They are shoved so far away and penned up like dogs, and then told, "Oh, you can protest *here*' and it's of course nowhere near where the group they want to get the message to will ever have a chance of getting it. :sarcastic

I think I agree with this also but I'm not sure what you mean.

We're willing to strike a balance for abortion protestors (fine), but we're not willing to consider it when there's money or power involved.

Yes, it is a balance of rights (not the right of abortion but the right to do one's business where one chooses).

Falwell is not disrupting someone's private funeral.

That's the difference.

Falwell (did I spell it right this time?) disrupts a lot of people's private life. So, I'd say disruption is not a differing point. A difference in my mind is that Falwell hides his hatred under the sheep's clothing of civil religious expression - hence why I said "much milder" for him.

 

[jonny]

Because you don't have that right. Check out Brandenburg v. Ohio.

And based on the laws that were passed the protestors don't have the right to disrupt these funerals. The ACLU is trying to get the law changed. Pathetic cause to take up if you ask me.

There are times when speech is limited. This should be one of those instances.

 

[Booko]

I was thinking that a funeral itself was the option. Cremation is certainly an option.

I don't see how. You have a stiff, and you have to do something with it, you know?

And no, cremation is not necessarily an option. Cremation is prohibited in my religion, unless the law demands it. And why should cremation be forced on a grieving family because some nutjob wants to protest and the family wants to avoid them? Why should the family have to postpone the grieving process and have their memorial service in private?

I'm sorry, but there's just no justice in that.

Missing a chance to pay last respects and provide closure is opportunity lost. But the Constitution, for example, does not grant that there is a right to be able to take all opportunities presented.

No, but there's the bit about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hardly think that barging into a funeral with abusive language and cursing falls under the heading of "happiness" and the "liberty" of the grieving family to be about their business sure is taken away by such antics. And a funeral is the sort of "opportunity lost" that is qualitatively different than the "opportunity" of having to take less time to cross the street because some protestors are crowded there.

It does also not grant "right" status to several other things long held in private tradition. I'm not against funerals but only comparing them to rights of a human being. The "right", if there was one, would have to belong to the deceased.

I don't see why the right would only belong to the deceased person and would not also belong to close family members.

I'm not advocating that an obnoxious display of hatred be accepted but that is must be fought by means other than law.

Oh, I would be *really* surprised if you were arguing it was acceptable behaviour. It would be completely unlike you.

I think I agree with this also but I'm not sure what you mean.

The law has no qualms about herding those who want to protest gatherings of the powerful into pens far from where the powerful will hear their voices.

And yet, we have qualms about keeping abusive fools away from a grieving family?

If that's the law, then the law is indeed an ***. We need to reconsider our priorities.

The powerful are not personally harmed by protestors (well, provided they're peaceful, obviously). I would argue that grieving families are indeed harmed by these protestors, yet someone wants to argue that they should be able to be not just within earshot, but "in your face"?

Yes, it is a balance of rights (not the right of abortion but the right to do one's business where one chooses).

Exactly. And that is why I would never support any effort to just shut down Phelps group from protesting at all. I just see no reason why a family's funeral service should be turned into a circus in order for them to have their say. They can just as well tell everyone how homosexuality got us into Iraq by protesting in front of a recruiting office. sheesh

Nor, for that matter, do I see why anyone's religious service should be interrupted for any reason. It's not "freedom of religion" when you're trying to have a service and someone's making it impossible to do so.

There are some things in our society that really should be considered "sacred" and funerals and worship services would top my list. If we cannot find a way to do this while preserving someone's right to free speech, then we have fallen farther than I had thought.

Falwell (did I spell it right this time?) disrupts a lot of people's private life.

How so? And what form does his disruption take? I don't think disrupting someone's life is a sufficient reason.

So, I'd say disruption is not a differing point. A difference in my mind is that Falwell hides his hatred under the sheep's clothing of civil religious expression - hence why I said "much milder" for him.

Yes, well Christ did warn about wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

[Pah]

[/COLOR]...
Nor, for that matter, do I see why anyone's religious service should be interrupted for any reason. It's not "freedom of religion" when you're trying to have a service and someone's making it impossible to do so.

Now there might be a good defense for a "demonstaration free zone" at any religious service. Of course, security plays a role in demonstrations around political candidates that have Secret Service protection.. There is also the zone, blocks away from a convention that is set up for security reasons. I'm not saying it should be but it is conflicting rights and roles.

....How so? And what form does his disruption take? I don't think disrupting someone's life is a sufficient reason.

Same-sex marriage

Yes, well Christ did warn about wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

[drekmed]

The ACLU is right in there attempt to protect the right to freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble. However, that is not necessarily what the people of Westburo Baptist Church are doing.
If I'm not mistaken, there are laws against slanderous speach, and speach thats is inciting violence.
What could possibly be done, is arrest any of the members of Westburo baptist that protest at funerals under these laws. It could be argued that because they travel outside their state and are targeting only certain types of funerals that they are attempting to incite violence with their words.
They should still be allowed to assemble and may protest, but they cannot slander the family or attempt to incite violence.