ACLU Challenging KY No Funeral Protests

[johnnobts]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/01/D8HBDG6O1.html

I'm sorry, but this is disgusting. may have already been posted, sorry if that's the case... Anti-war protestors can protest any other place, any other time, but give the soldiers their dues. They died for what they believed in, their blood gives them the right to give their last "speech" via the funeral. as one who has presided over 4 military funerals in the last 3 years, 2 Iraq related, i can tell you the families deserve to be left alone, given words of comfort, not criticism. KY shouldn't have to have this sort of law on the books, its a sad commentary on the political extremism of anti-war protestors and the lengths they are willing to do to get attention. it hurts their cause, and more importantly it hurts the families of the soldiers. so i say to the protestors, shut up, and let the dead speak for themselves.

 

[venk]

The ACLU defends the Sickest and most disgusting animals in the country and protects their forum for opinions. Why? Because they truley understand what free speech means and that is why I love them.

 

[johnnobts]

right, how dare we ever question the actions or the judgment of the aclu?

 

[zendari]

The ACLU defends stuff that doesn't fall under the standard leftwinged agenda. Say something antigay or antiabortion and you're hung out to dry.

 

[BlancoNino]

The ACLU defends their right to protest, but not anyone's right to have a respectable funeral?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: venk
The ACLU defends the Sickest and most disgusting animals in the country and protects their forum for opinions. Why? Because they truley understand what free speech means and that is why I love them.

QFT. :thumbsup:

 

[daniel49]

big suprise on that one you would think every once in a while they could actually find a freedom worth protecting.

Just off thier radar I guess?:|

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: zendari
The ACLU defends stuff that doesn't fall under the standard leftwinged agenda. Say something antigay or antiabortion and you're hung out to dry.

I guess that explains their defending the KKK....

 

[Amplifier]

The ACLU is not a legitimate group. They aren't idealists who read the constitution every night before they go to bed. They are a group adhering to a specific audience. The ACLU supported Nambla. I want you to think about that, they gave support to grown men who wanted to have sex with preteen boys.

They interpret the right to free speech as a right to harass funerals or to organize a group whose sole purpose is to rape innocent children. However when it comes to another right, the 2nd amendment, they are much more conservative.

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Hold up. On one hand the ACLU feels so passionate about our freedoms as to defend child rapists, but they don't want to touch the amendment just below it. Is it that their support comes mostly from Democrats who are not fond of guns. And the second they're seen with Charlton Heston the people who support them will flee. They can't let that happen can they, cowards.

No matter what side of free speech or gun control you're on, it's painfully obvious that the ACLU are not defenders of our civil rights. They're politicians. And like politicians, gaining and maintaining political capital comes before anything else.

 

[JackStorm]

While I am all for people protesting over grievances and whatnot, I just can't help but wonder if there's something wrong with people who protest at someones funeral. One would think people would show some common courtesy and allow families of the dead(no matter what they did while alive) to grieve in peace.

Also, while I support the principles the ACLU was founded on, I too am very disappointed with their reluctance to support peoples 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Red Dawn]

So Fred Phelps and his Homo hating Baptists went running to the ACLU to protect their rights to protest funerals huh? Gotta say they (ACLU) tale on the unpopular causes in the name of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
The ACLU is not a legitimate group. They aren't idealists who read the constitution every night before they go to bed. They are a group adhering to a specific audience. The ACLU supported Nambla. I want you to think about that, they gave support to grown men who wanted to have sex with preteen boys.

They interpret the right to free speech as a right to harass funerals or to organize a group whose sole purpose is to rape innocent children. However when it comes to another right, the 2nd amendment, they are much more conservative.

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Hold up. On one hand the ACLU feels so passionate about our freedoms as to defend child rapists, but they don't want to touch the amendment just below it. Is it that their support comes mostly from Democrats who are not fond of guns. And the second they're seen with Charlton Heston the people who support them will flee. They can't let that happen can they, cowards.

No matter what side of free speech or gun control you're on, it's painfully obvious that the ACLU are not defenders of our civil rights. They're politicians. And like politicians, gaining and maintaining political capital comes before anything else.

I agree that the ACLU could be a little stronger on the 2nd Amendment issues, but I don't see how that lessens the impact of what they do with the OTHER parts of the constitution. I certainly find them to be overall more admirable than people, like you, that ONLY seem to care about the 2nd Amendment. Illegal wiretapping, jailing without trial, censoring the press, all fine and dandy...but even licensing guns...you guys go totally batshit.

Here's a concept, how about instead of ranting and raving like a lunatic about the evil ACLU, defender of the kiddie rapists, why don't you express an opinion about THIS issue. Hell, they are defending the rights of nutbar right-wing groups and pro-military counter-protestors...seems like you'd be all in favor of it.

And as far as the ACLU being a legitimate group, it seems to be that if the NRA is a legitimate group when all they do is defend the 2nd Amendment, the ACLU can be a legitimate group defending the rest of them. In any case, foaming at the mouth aside, READING the actual position of the ACLU and the NRA on gun control issues will reveal almost identical positions. That's right! Both groups are fine with most current rules and regulations, and don't think new rules need to be applied. There is a lot of bitching about the ACLU and the gun control issue, but I see very little evidence to suggest they are any more pro-gun control than the NRA.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The ACLU defends their right to protest, but not anyone's right to have a respectable funeral?

Because that's not a right?

 

[Red Dawn]

BTW there's a group called the Patriot Riders that confronts Phelps and his band of freaks when they try and disrupt these funerals.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
BTW there's a group called the Patriot Riders that confronts Phelps and his band of freaks when they try and disrupt these funerals.

Emotionally, I would be fine if the Patriot Riders "confronted" Phelps with a bunch of baseball bats. Intellectually, I know both groups should have the right to say their piece. I don't know why this is a hard concept for people...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

The Phelps gang is the embodiment of "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

They are disgusting, small, disrespectful people. I absolutely hate what they stand for. They have a right to assemble and spew their crap... but establishing a boundary for the "protesters" is absolutely legal and constitutional. People have a right to speak and express their views but they do not have a right to be heard. If they want to protest a dead soldier's funeral they can do it somewhere else.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The Phelps gang is the embodiment of "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

They are disgusting, small, disrespectful people. I absolutely hate what they stand for. They have a right to assemble and spew their crap... but establishing a boundary for the "protesters" is absolutely legal and constitutional. People have a right to speak and express their views but they do not have a right to be heard. If they want to protest a dead soldier's funeral they can do it somewhere else.

Indeed...and even the ACLU isn't disputing that. Their complaint is the LANGUAGE of the boundry law, they fear it is too broad and could be used in situations that it wasn't intended to be used in.

 

[dmcowen674]

Sad that any of this is an issue.

America is being buried every day too along with those soldiers.

 

[Tab]

Did anyone even read the article?

The new law, signed by Gov. Ernie Fletcher in March, bans protests within 300 feet of memorial services, wakes and burials. Violators can be charged with first-degree disorderly conduct, punishable by up to a year in jail.

But it is so broad that people could unknowingly violate it by stopping to chat on a public sidewalk near a funeral home, Lili S. Lutgens, an ACLU attorney in Louisville. It also could prevent pro- military groups from participating in counter-protests outside memorial services, she said.

I see nothing wrong with this, ACLU is only refining the law.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
right, how dare we ever question the actions or the judgment of the aclu?

No one is asking that, however it'd nice if you could read...

 

[Future Shock]

This is one of those cases where the ACLU will get pilloried by those who don't read beyond the headlines, just like their "defense" of NAMBLA. We've been over this thread before, including the quotes from the ACLUs own speakers and website about how they did NOT endorse or even agree with NAMBLA or it's goals, and that the suit was about defending those that had done media work for them. And as Tabb points out, this is just about limiting an overly broad law by asking a judge to refine it's parameters.

What I DON'T get is these damned church wackos protesting that US military deaths are caused by a tolerance of homosexuals. Does that mean that every single military death in US history has been caused because we were tolerant of homosexuals? Because that can hardly be claimed to be the case in 1776 - or 1812 - or pretty much every other war. So all of a SUDDEN our military is dying merely because of homosexual tolerance, or those Colonial Puritans were a lot more understanding than we thought.

Where do these people come UP with these ideas, really? I am baffled...

Future Shock

 

[johnnobts]

this thing about the right to grieve and have a respectable funeral shouldn't have to be written on the lawbooks, its called common sense... john locke would agree to that. if it comes to the point that this has to actually be amended into the constitution, b/c of the absurdity of the aclu, i have a pretty good feeling that it would pass (not just protecting military funerals, but any funerals). i don't like seeing america having to become such a litigious society though, but when common sense begins to disappear, i suppose laws such as these become necessary.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari
The ACLU defends stuff that doesn't fall under the standard leftwinged agenda. Say something antigay or antiabortion and you're hung out to dry.

You really need to start reading links before you post.

And, johnnobts, the protest isn't anti-war, it's anti-gay. This group pretty much blames any tragedy on homosexuals.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
The ACLU is not a legitimate group. They aren't idealists who read the constitution every night before they go to bed. They are a group adhering to a specific audience. The ACLU supported Nambla. I want you to think about that, they gave support to grown men who wanted to have sex with preteen boys.

They interpret the right to free speech as a right to harass funerals or to organize a group whose sole purpose is to rape innocent children. However when it comes to another right, the 2nd amendment, they are much more conservative.

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Hold up. On one hand the ACLU feels so passionate about our freedoms as to defend child rapists, but they don't want to touch the amendment just below it. Is it that their support comes mostly from Democrats who are not fond of guns. And the second they're seen with Charlton Heston the people who support them will flee. They can't let that happen can they, cowards.

No matter what side of free speech or gun control you're on, it's painfully obvious that the ACLU are not defenders of our civil rights. They're politicians. And like politicians, gaining and maintaining political capital comes before anything else.

Maybe because there are groups that already do a better job of defending the 2nd Amendment? In the end, the ACLU is made of people, and many of those people understand laws relating to the other ammendments better then the 2nd. Let the NRA handle that one.

So you think the ACLU is composed of child molesters? Do you even know what you are talking about? Although I'm pretty sure you don't.

Who else is going to protect civil rights in this country? I don't see any other groups stepping up the plate. Go start your own right-wing group to defend your rights.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Amplifier
The ACLU is not a legitimate group. They aren't idealists who read the constitution every night before they go to bed. They are a group adhering to a specific audience. The ACLU supported Nambla. I want you to think about that, they gave support to grown men who wanted to have sex with preteen boys.

They interpret the right to free speech as a right to harass funerals or to organize a group whose sole purpose is to rape innocent children. However when it comes to another right, the 2nd amendment, they are much more conservative.

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Hold up. On one hand the ACLU feels so passionate about our freedoms as to defend child rapists, but they don't want to touch the amendment just below it. Is it that their support comes mostly from Democrats who are not fond of guns. And the second they're seen with Charlton Heston the people who support them will flee. They can't let that happen can they, cowards.

No matter what side of free speech or gun control you're on, it's painfully obvious that the ACLU are not defenders of our civil rights. They're politicians. And like politicians, gaining and maintaining political capital comes before anything else.

Maybe because there are groups that already do a better job of defending the 2nd Amendment? In the end, the ACLU is made of people, and many of those people understand laws relating to the other ammendments better then the 2nd. Let the NRA handle that one.

So you think the ACLU is composed of child molesters? Do you even know what you are talking about? Although I'm pretty sure you don't.

Who else is going to protect civil rights in this country? I don't see any other groups stepping up the plate. Go start your own right-wing group to defend your rights.

The "well there already is the NRA" argument is a cop out for people who don't want to admit that the ACLU doesn?t want to alienate its typically left leaning members. The NRA would not have had to become the huge, aggressive, very powerful, pro-gun machine that it is today had other groups (including the ACLU) that claim to protect our many freedoms not just shrugged at the 2nd while defending tooth and nail all the others.

While I find the goals of the ACLU to be commendable and important, I cannot help but find their explanations for their lax defense of the 2nd hypocritical at best.