ACLU, liberal conglomerate of lawyers, sue in favor of Fred Phelps!!!

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072200643.html
Since certain mods seem unable to understand or reason a title of a thread and the information contained within, it appears that the ACLU believes that Rev Phelps has a Constitutional right to harrass soldiers' widows and widowers while trying to bury their love ones. Seems that these liberal lawyers have MENTAL DISORDERS that only fellow liberals could possibly understand. Maybe one of our fellow liberal members would care to explain this thinking process that seems flawed by me. Perhaps the mod that locked the first thread has an explaination. But anyway, do you believe that Phelps has a Constitutional right for this vile act of protest and is the ACLU going off the deep in with their assistance to such a creature?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

If the ACLU were the vile Liberals you claim, surely they would have nothing to do with an intensely religious homophobe like Phelps? This, to me, just seems to show that the ACLU, whatever else you might think of them, are consistent in their position.

[Tribesman]

Maybe one of our fellow liberal members would care to explain this thinking process that seems flawed by me.

You could ask them themselves , it appears it is a frequently asked question .

The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups—particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam. We do not defend them because we agree with them; rather, we defend their right to free expression and free assembly.

So Dave , why do you hate freedom , do you wish to abolish the bill of rights ?
Now there was some bloke once who said something about not agreeing with what people say but defending their right to say it , I think he may have had a part in founding something or other , perhaps you could refresh my memory .

Dave , you know this "liberal" group describes itself as "conservative" don't you .
Is that a case of the nice little pigeon holes not fitting with the vague applications of the words that are so freely bandied about .

[Kanamori]

Well, the article itself is pretty useless. In fact, it seems that the Missouri law doesn't have a distance for limiting the protest, which is utterly ridiculous and a clear vioaltion of the Constitution. That means that the law clearly does discriminate solely on the content of the message. That's been unconstitional for quite a while, thank God. However, I do not see how the content of their message is necesarry to practicing their religion and somehow keeps them from practicing religion.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16532

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A good constitutional question here.

The group is clearly attempting "political speech" -- an aspect of free speech central to the protections of the First Amendment.

However, does the prohibition around/near funerals constitute aninappropriate restriction on their ability to "get out their message?"

It has long been held that reasonable "logistic" restrictions on political speech are allowed, so long as no political message has been squelched and that no party engaging in such speech has undue access available or undue restrictions placed upon them, in comparison to any other group. So, requiring a permit to hold a march, as opposed to simply blocking the street, has long been deemed reasonable whereas preventing the Klukkers from holding a rally while permitting the Presbyterians to do so has long been held to be wrong.

Obviously, it is easy to sympathize with those attending the funerals, since it is unlikely that they would wish to deal with the politics over and above the grief they are already feeling.

[Tribesman]

I do not see how the content of their message is religious
Well the word God in their message is a bit of a giveaway , as in .....
god hates fags .
But its nice to know that that they have spread their list of victims from gods wrath against gays , apparently now coal miners are also killed as part of gods punishments for homosexuality .
Whatever next ? road traffic accident victims , people falling off ladders , heart attacks .

[Mithras]

.
Whatever next ? road traffic accident victims , people falling off ladders , heart attacks .

Fred will link any tragic event with god hating gays, Admittidly he doesnt do the same with his owns strokes........

[Devastatin Dave]

Dave , you know this "liberal" group describes itself as "conservative" don't you .

If they're conservative, then my real name is Che.

[InsaneApache]

Well as Fred is a well known homosexual liberal, who smokes spliff, (as long as it's cheap), I can't see the problem.

[Big_John]

Well as Fred is a well known homosexual liberal, who smokes spliff, (as long as it's cheap), I can't see the problem.

unless i'm behind the time, which is entirely possible, a spliff is marijuana cigarette, not marijuana (bulk). just fyi.

[Devastatin Dave]

He smokes weed? I figured it would be much harder stuff considering his beliefs.

[Lemur]

DD, if you're going to do a Coulter impersonation, at least try to be consistent. Phelps's group is a reactionary religious order that aligns with the extreme right wing of American politics, if they can be said to align at all. They're like an American Taliban, wanting strict Koranic (oops, I mean Bilbical) rule of law, with a heavy emphasis on your favorite passages in Leviticus. How they tie into liberalism is beyond me, but please feel free to explain.

The ACLU is a one-trick horse that goes nutso on freedom of speech, very similar to the NRA, but nutty about a different Constitutional Amendment. I don't see why the ACLU and NRA can't get together and have a love-in that encompasses the First and Second, but their followers have some real identity issues that would preclude such a meeting of (extremist) minds.

Is there anything that you don't like that you don't call "liberal"? Does liberal = bad? Is there any need for the word "bad," what with "liberal" taking up so much terrain?

[whyidie]

DD, if you're going to do a Coulter impersonation, at least try to be consistent. Phelps's group is a reactionary religious order that aligns with the extreme right wing of American politics, if they can be said to align at all. They're like an American Taliban, wanting strict Koranic (oops, I mean Bilbical) rule of law, with a heavy emphasis on your favorite passages in Leviticus. How they tie into liberalism is beyond me, but please feel free to explain.

The ACLU is a one-trick horse that goes nutso on freedom of speech, very similar to the NRA, but nutty about a different Constitutional Amendment. I don't see why the ACLU and NRA can't get together and have a love-in that encompasses the First and Second, but their followers have some real identity issues that would preclude such a meeting of (extremist) minds.

Is there anything that you don't like that you don't call "liberal"? Does liberal = bad? Is there any need for the word "bad," what with "liberal" taking up so much terrain?

Reality would appear to be incompatible with his world view.

[Ser Clegane]

The last thread has been closed for a reason - and this second version nicely shows why the first one has been closed.

Instead of actually discussing the actual issue - too which extent free speech shoulkd be defended, the topic is used to take cheap shots.

Closed (the next reincarnation of this thread will result in more than just a thread closure)