ACLU supporting another bigoted asshole! This time it's Rev. Phelps!

[Crazy Dave]

Every time I think of becoming a member shit like this always comes up. The ACLU is backing up the asshole Rev. FRED PHELPS! Now I ask anyone with any common sense, is there or is there not, a difference between hate speech and freedom of speech? Never mind, I can answer that. You cannot call a black person the "n word" and the same should go for gay people being called the typical derogatory names and being told they're all going to hell.

Am I right or wrong? I would like to hear from any ACLU members who support this and explain why the ACLU and Fred Phelps are right. The explanation in the articles is weak and bullshit in my opinion. Freedom of speech does not include hate speech. Period!

"ACLU Fights For Anti-Gay Phelps Clan"
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/07/072306phelps.htm

"Kansas church to fight Mo. law in court"
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/21/kansas_church_to_fight_mo_law_in_court/

[bluestateguy]

1. Did Rush Limbaugh ever thank the ACLU for defending him?

Did he show any gratitude at all and stop beating up on the organization?

[wicket]

30. He thanked them but I'm not sure if he still beats up on them

Since it's Rush, he probably hasn't changed.

[LanternWaste]

86. Nor did Col. Oliver North

Nor did Col. Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings. Some people just don't know how tosay "thank you"!

:)

[FreeStateDemocrat]

94. You can't put thanks in your pocket, he should have paid ACLU back.

Limbaugh is a multi-millionaire, powerful and influential he didn't need any help to buy the best justice available. I will not support the ACLU with my limited resources for that reason. Fuck helping rich bastards manipulate a corrupt and immoral judiciary system, let them use their own vast wealth to skate.

[CuteNFuzzy]

2. you are wrong

The same freedom of speech that protects Phelps is the same freedom of speech that protects you and protects me.

Deal with it

[SammyBlue]

96. Cute, you couldn't be more right.

Hate speech is protected. It doesn't take a backbone to agree. Sorry, but the OP is destroying the 1st amendment by saying certain speech is protected. Fred Phelps, as odious as he is, is protected.

Free speech is a bitch.

[A HERETIC I AM]

3. They are consistant.

You have to give them credit for that. The fact is, the guy has the right to say what he says, even if what he says isn't "right"

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

4. As far as I'm concerned, freedom of speech is freedom for all speech

not just the speech that we like. It works both ways. If people like Phelps are restricted then it opens up the courts to challenge everyone's rights to free speech. I support the ACLU. I don't support Phelps, but I believe that he has just as much a right to be a giant fucking asshole, as I do to be a gay rights activist.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. You have to remember something about the ACLU

the fact that they are helping Phelps doesn't mean they support his views. The ACLU supports one thing, and one thing only; the Constitution of the United States. One person once said that the First Amendment only works when it allows people with views repugnant to their own to express their opinions. Both Phelps and the KKK and I think even Rush Limpaws have used the ACLU when they got into trouble.

[Skinner]

6. You are wrong. Freedom of speech does include hate speech.

If we only allow speech that is popular, then "freedom of speech" is utterly meaningless.

[Crazy Dave]

11. Maybe they get it in Sweden then, not here.

And it's not talking about what's "popular", it's an issue of right and wrong and protecting the rights and civil liberties of those being abused with derogatory and hateful language towards their lifestyle and orientation.

"HATE SPEECH LEGISLATION IN SWEDEN"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm

[Skinner]

15. No, apparently they don't "get it" in Sweden.

They have set the precedent that the government can decide what speech is permissable. If (god forbid) right-wing extremists ever take control of the Swedish Government, what speech do you think they would outlaw? (Hint: They probably wouldn't outlaw anti-gay hate speech.)

[Crazy Dave]

18. "They probably wouldn't outlaw anti-gay hate speech"

I would have to agree with that. Good point which is why I brought this up for discussion in the first place. I wanted to see it from other's point of view besides my own.

[Guaranteed]

22. No, they don't get it.

But, on the other hand, Europe had to deal with the killing of 6M Jews in a matter of a few years. They're coming from a different place on this issue.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. I think the issue is delivery, not content.

I think that simply standing near (although what the definition of "near" should be is arguable) to a funeral yelling wordlessly and waving blank plackards in an attempt to distress the family of the person being buried should be illegal.

The law that I think should prohibit this kind of behaviour is one against harrassement, not one against hate speech.

Freedom of speech guarantees the right to say what you like (modulo incitement to violence), but not the right to say it in all ways at all times and places - you don't have the right to shout out your views in a library, for example. Similarly, I think protesting at funerals should be illegal.

I do agree that whether it is or isn't, the contents of the protest should not be taken into account, though.

[wakeme2008]

7. As one of those Card Carrying ACLU members

:evilgrin:

I do not like what they are doing for him, but I have to support the WHY they are doing it.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gman]

9. The ACLU is very consistent

The RW never talks about when they help them.

[ComerPerro]

58. Well, they will now, since recently the right hates Phelps

but, you're right, the ACLU is consistant.

Republicans and conservatives will attack you if you are consistant, and they will attack you if you "change with the wind", they don't care...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. Proud ACLU member here.

You are wrong. The ACLU supports free speech, period. Everybody's speech, even really despicable speech, because that's what the Constitution requires. The remedy for "bad" speech isn't suppression; it's more speech; the best cure for rot is sunlight. If you suppress the speech of creeps like Phelps they just go underground and fester, but if they are allowed to spew their crap we know who they are and what they stand for, and the way you deal with them is to stand up in public and tell them they're full of crap. Anyhow, who decides what is "bad" speech? We can all agree Phelps is a scumbag, but you never, ever let the government decide what is appropriate speech. If a precedent is set for prohibiting certain kinds of speech, the next time it could be you. Years ago the ACLU sued to allow a Nazi group to march through Skokie, IL, in a Jewish neighborhood, and was similarly criticized, but they did the right thing. I hate Phelps and his ilk, too, and I'm sure the ACLU lawyers don't like him any better. But it isn't Phelps they are defending; it's the First Amendment.

[Cornus]

12. You are wrong. Above posts explained why quite well. NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. You Can

"You cannot call a black person the "n word"


You can but you run the risk of picking your teeth up from the floor.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Freedom is a double-edged sword

You can't defend the freedom of the left while denying the freedom of the right

It's just the way it is.

[misternormal]

93. The RW would just...

... as soon take the right of free speech from all liberals since we don't agree with them, however, if they are caught in a situation that might require the help of the ACLU, they are more than happy to take it.

Not from the standpoint of making sure that the constitution is being followed, but to get their little asses out of trouble.

The RW would like to change freedoms to a single edge blade.

[Tesha]

16. Even people whom you deem to be assholes still have free speech rights.

Even people whom you deem to be assholes still have free speech rights.

Nobody ever has any problem with easy speech. "It's a nice day".
"America is a wonderful country". "George W. Bush is God's gift to
the world."

The speech people have trouble with is the speech that actually
says something. "Today, the war killed n-hundred innocent people."
"America's actions breed terrorism around the world." "George W.
Bush is an evil bastard who should be turned over to a war crimes
tribunal for trial and then hanging."

And yes, "God hates fags."

I'm sorry, but if you're willing to toss out Fred Phelps's speech
rights, I'm sure there are other folks in this country who will be
more than willingto toss out yours.

That's why the ACLU defends *EVERYONE'S* free speech rights, no
matter how odious their speech.

Tesha

[bowens43]

17. Freedom of speech only for those with whom we agree?

No thanks. I don't want to live in a country that practices THAT kind of freedom.

BTW , you certainly CAN call a black person the "n word" or a Jewish person the "k word" or an hispanic person the "s word" or a white person the "h word" etc. It's all protected speech , as it should be.

I don't want your wish-washy version of free speech.

[Vidar]

19. Give 'em free speech, but no police protection.

[bronxiteforever]

20. none of these vets were public figures

a funeral is a private time for the family and it is essential to our humanness, we bury and mourn our dead-it is a time for a family to be together-I support much of what the Aclu does but on this issue I strongly disagree-this act by Phelps is an invasion into the privacy of family life by a monster who is the natural product of fundie thought-there is a place for basic human privacy and a funeral is it-demonstrate everywhere else but not a grave or burial service-the founders meant to protect civil rights of political speech, but they did not contemplate that their ancestors would mock the dead in front of bereaved children,mothers, fathers and siblings-Phelps shows how far the respect for humanity as fallen in the GOP era -I can think of no greater intrusion into the privacy of our common human life than this

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. If It Was A Private Cemetary The Phelps Nuts Could Be Barred

But the funerals were held on government property.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with free speech not individuals.

[Guaranteed]

21. You think calling someone a "nigger" should be against the LAW?

You're obviously not familiar with what the ACLU did in Skokie, IL.

[Crazy Dave]

25. I do feel that calling someone that name does violate their....

...individual and civil rights and don't forget that their rights should be protected too.

[Guaranteed]

27. The 1st Amendment comes first.

Free expression of ideas is the bedrock foundation of this nation.

Besides, what you're advocating sounds like it's going down a path leading to name-calling being against the law. That's entirely unrealistic.

[Crazy Dave]

29. I think as a society laws need to evolve

Remember, we used to have laws banning interracial marriages and integrated churches and schools. And sure, I'm definitely against those types of laws.

[Guaranteed]

Right, but you'll notice that they evolved in the other direction.

We *removed* the bans on interracial marriages. You're saying that we should put up another ban.

Do you have a list of words that it should be against the law to call someone? Why would one word make the list, but not another?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Who Decides Which Speech Is Acceptable And Unacceptable?

I'll bet there are a lot of people who who would like to ban this site.

[Crazy Dave]

34. Good point

But does this site violate anyone's civil rights? It is also not specifically set up just to do that either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. How Does Calling Someone A Name Violate Someone's Civil Rights?

There are laws in place to protect people from being actively discriminated against when it comes to employment, lodging, and housing but you can't use the law to protect people from being insulted

[Rabrrrrrr]

50. If you believe that name-calling violates civil rights, then yes, DU is

a place that is in great violation of civil rights of lots and lots of people: freepers, the many senators and others in politics who have specifically named AND called names, the entire cadre of rightwing blowhards like Limbaugh and Coulter, etc.

Heck - by your definition, I just violated Limbaugh's and Coulter's civil rights.

Unless Skinner deletes this message, then, by your reasoning, he, as the owner of DU, is guilty of tacit civil rights violations.

Thankfully, the law doesn't think as you do, and so we're okay.

[theboss]

85. An idividual cannot violate civil rights

Only governments.

[Hosnon]

74. What individual and civil rights does it violate? nt

[hootinholler]

81. Which rights exactly are violated?

I wasn't aware that we have a right to be not offended.

-Hoot

[JackDragna]

24. Free speech is all about protecting the rights of the unpopular.

So long as Phelps and his kind aren't directly inciting people to violence, they have the right to say what they wish. Our rights are here to guard people like Phelps, for his are the opinions that need protecting. The popular opinions never need protection.

[wicket]

26. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, even the most file, bigoted speech

And vile, bigoted speech is ususally the one that needs protecting the most.

[Crazy Dave]

28. Then how to protect civil rights then?

Hasn't this society evolved enough yet where racist, bigoted and hateful actions that violate any individual's civil rights should not be allowed?
Just by saying, "well if you call someone a n...., then they can knock your teeth out", puts us back in the knuckle dragging, caveman days. Plus tell that to an old or handicapped gay or black person. That they can punch someone rather than get help for the verbal assault.

[wicket]

33. Being called a name isn't a violation of civil rights

Assault is. That's the thing about free speech, sometimes you have to hear vile, hateful stuff. Such is the cost of freedom.

[Guaranteed]

38. Well, it is, sometimes.

It depends on the circumstances.

But, out on the street, in your standard "public" situation, you're right.

[Guaranteed]

35. Protecting free speech *is* protecting civil rights.

But, as for your concern, there are other ways to keep people from offending each other. If you've noticed, there really aren't a whole lot of people around who still publicly call people niggers. That's not because it's against the law, but because people who do so are outcast and ridiculed.

Other than that, I'm not sure what to say. There ARE laws against harassment, and in the workplace what is lawfully acceptable behavior is much tighter than it is in public. But those workplace laws involve civil law, not criminal. The ACLU has filed this suit in civil court, of course, but the law passed in the state of Missouri, which they are looking to strike down, was a criminal law.

[wicket]

36. BTW, thanks for sparking an interesting discussion!

:thumbsup:

[Crazy Dave]

44. Thank you

I appreciate everyone's input so far too. Even those that disagree and with the exception of the few, but always expected personal attacks, I've gotten a lot out this discussion and it's got me thinking in a slightly different direction versus earlier. I have my opinions, right or wrong but my mind isn't totally closed shut or one sided only. Take the moms in the court rooms whose son's are accused of murder. You could have the murder in front of a dozen witnesses, on video tape and the momma will still deny that her boy did any wrong. That is a bad type of mentality to have in my opinion however I see that type of mentallity in a few of the posts on here. The ACLU can do no wrong, no matter what, ever??? Now that's hard to believe there.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tbyg52]

46. Certainly I'm not a fan of verbal assault, but consider this...

...if speech some (or even many) find offensive wasn't protected, guess who would define what speech was illegal? The people in power, that's who. Are you comfortable with the idea of W defining what you can say, and having the power to throw you in jail if you transgress?

[Marie26]

61. Like that quote

from Larry Flynt: "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."

[wicket]

89. God Bless Larry Flynt!

;)

:patriot:

[McKenzie]

32. Banning just drives them underground

where they will preach to an audience that cannot be reached by a countering viewpoint. I want these people out in the open so they can be met head on in the full glare of the spotlight. Ban these creeps and they'll just go underground and spread their hate from there adding more recruits to their hateful causes because we can't put over a rational argument to persuade the guillible.

Free speech means just that. And, of course, there is the thorny issue of where the line between acceptable and unacceptable points of view is drawn. More importantly...who decides where that line lies? Rhetorical question really because it is obvious that restricting "unacceptable" points of view is open to abuse by whichever group wants to restrict whatever opinions they dislike.

The point of view expressed by the Rev is out of order and thoroughly odious BTW.

[KitSileya]

39. I'll go with Francois-Marie Arouet on this one. n/t

[endarkenment]

45. Voltaire - a personal favorite

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

Francois Marie Arouet VOLTAIRE
The Friends of Voltaire, 1907
French philosopher and writer (1694-1778)

[KitSileya]

51. Tho', as far as I know,

he never actually said that, but it is a fair summation of his attitude.

[saltpoint]

40. I'm an ACLU member. Have been a long time. Still will be next week

and the week after that.

Phelps is a monster. Those demonstrations at funerals are transgressions of the spirit, you get no argument from me on that.

But they're legal.

The ACLU's attorneys are a pretty sharp bunch.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. I Don't Think

I don't think Fred Phelps is worth amending the Constitution for.

[tbyg52]

42. It cannot be said enough

The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights. Period. Good thing *somebody* does.

Signed,
Card-carrying member.

[endarkenment]

43. Another proud ACLU member here!

It is exactly vile asshats like the Phelps clan, expressing their hideous views, that need to be protected else we all lose our rights.

[Ioo]

47. Great - Kinda puts a dent in the Right-Wing TP about ACLU...

I am glad they are, rights are for all Americans.

[Crazy Dave]

49. It also shows what a hypocrite Phelps is too.

Soliciting and accepting their help to defend his right to free speech but at the same time they're suing the Boy Scouts everywhere for their anti-gay policies, now I'm getting confused :crazy:

I guess if it's being done in the "Lord's name" every thing's cool.

[Jacobin]

48. Its what they do. They protect the constitution

Their job is to protect the most outrageous and heinous speech and keep the bounds of free speech as wide as possible.

Their actions keep us safe from the government's desire to suppress speech.

Its more important than having to put up with the occasional whacko.

[MadHound]

52. The ACLU protects EVERYBODY'S freedom of speech

Whether it be speech that you agree with, or speech that you would like stifled. That is, after all, what the First Amendment is all about. Don't you get it? If we limit Phelp's right to speak, we will be limiting our own right to speak.

Sorry, but you are dead wrong on this one.

[lectrobyte]

53. The First Amendment rules. I do not agree with what Phelps has to

say, but I'm damn glad that my support of the ACLU in some microscopic way may be helping to fight for his freedom to say it.

[mcscajun]

54. This is exactly what the ACLU does. And Yes, I Am A Member.

Freedom of speech includes speech you do not agree with; it ESPECIALLY includes speech you don't agree with and makes your blood boil. Just as whatever wild opinions you might hold will make someone else's blood boil. The right to free speech does not include the right never to be offended; I've run across more than a couple of people recently (on various message boards) who think that, though.

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

[rpgamerd00d]

55. You are wrong. Freedom of speech does include hate speech.

-nt

[seemunkee]

56. If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not

If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.
-Noam Chomsky

[tocqueville]

57. There is no "absolute freedom of speech"

it's a myth

when "speech" is used to defame groups for ethnical, sexual, political reasons it counters the mere expression of freedom of speech and attacks those groups other rights. The ACLU has got it wrong on this with this naive approach. Hatemongers will surely use ACLU services to have the power one day to ban... ACLU....

[Crazy Dave]

63. It's obvious the majority...

...have never been victims of racism or bigotry themselves so therefore the "don't fix it if it ain't broke" type attitudes seem to be the most popular. It would be different if they/we had ever been told they couldn't marry the person they love or that their kids can't go to the same school as the others in the neighborhood. Walk a mile in those shoes and then see how you feel about protecting "hate speech" and the right for people to use it.

[endarkenment]

67. Told vs enacted.

It is one thing to tell somebody they shouldn't be allowed to marry, which is done all the time by politicians, it is quite another thing to enact legislation that forbids your marriage, which is also being done quite a bit. The former is protected political speech, the latter is revolting behavior that deprives people of their rights. That you do not see the difference is, to me, appalling.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

78. Wahhh????

"It's obvious the majority have never been victims of racism or bigotry themselves..."

As a woman, can I tell you just how much bigotry I have experienced in my lifetime? Can I tell you about the time I had the word "nigger" thrown at me by some jackass in Texas -- even though I am white (he was a bigot and stoopid to boot)? Can I tell you about how much I despise misogynist rap and how if I hear "get down on your knees bitch and blow me" (or some other variation) one more time I may stroke out? Can I tell you how much I would love to never have to hear myself referred to in such terms???

But you know what?

We have this thing called the first amendment. And I thank our forefathers every day for giving us such a brilliant gift.

Because if some jackass can't call me "nigger" or "bitch" or any other offensive crap, someone may decide that I can't call George W, Bush a scum-sucking sack of shit that should have his ass in an international criminal court for crimes against humanity.

And I wouldn't want that.

The gods bless the ACLU!

[endarkenment]

66. that is nonsense.

But you certainly have the right to express your thoughts here. There is no absolute freedom of speech, and the boundaries have been established in a fairly murky way, but political speech, and that is what the Phelps are all about, is held to be far more protected than other forms of speech. I'd love to see your evidence that there are legal grounds for your assertion above that speech used to defame groups for political reasons is somehow not protected. So, for example if I suggest that all Republicans are morons, that speech can be supressed? Or just if I suggest, as for example the hideous Ann Coulter has suggested, that women are not fit to vote, that sort of speech should be repressed? How about if I suggest that rich people are ruining this country through greed and corruption, surely that is hate speech that needs to be banned too, right?

[tocqueville]

71. It's a question of consensus

but most European countries have a consensus that expressions (verbal, graphic, etc..) that attack groups or individuals for their ethnical, religious or sexual background or preferences is not falling under freedom of expression. The examples you give fall more into the political sphere which is different. What I meant with "for political reasons" is only an explanation of the agenda of the hatemongers. The Nazis were very good at using defamatory terms for the Jews to prepare their extermination. Because it's a very big difference in saying "The Hezbollah members are terrorists" and "All Muslims are terrorists" to take an actual example.

BTW Ann Coulter's case is limit.

[Hosnon]

76. Europe has a completely different set of assumptions regarding fundamental

rights. Most place the right to individual dignity above all other rights. Thus, if you call someone a particularly offensive name, that person can sue.

On the other hand, as you know, freedom of speech is one of the paramount freedoms in the U.S., especially political speech. I don't know the case law but I'd assume that there is a very strict balancing test that must be past for suppression to occur.

[tocqueville]

98. You can sue if insulted in Europe, yes

but the cases I cite don't have to do with individual freedoms but with COLLECTIVE ones : the right of being black, Jew or gay (or all at the same time) without being harassed (besides it's a right that stands in the UN convention of human rights which the US have ratified). Remember that a those fundamental freedoms were INVENTED in Europe and exported through the American and French revolutions. They are not SPECIFICALLY American.

Europe have an experience of what verbal violence against groups can lead to, therefore the hate-speech laws of today. If the USA had had a KKK presidency leading to the genocide of its black population, probably the laws would be different. I only hope that the US doesn't have to go though such an episode to make some legal adaptations.

Because banning some forms of speech - when it is hate speech - is only a weapon (not perfect I admit) against the bigots. It has nothing to do with normal political expression.

[Marie26]

59. Freedom of speech does include hate speech

in the US. That's just how it works under the First Amendment. If the gov. can begin suppressing or discriminating against speech based on its content, they can pass laws against anti-war demonstrators, or anti-Bush demonstrators next. For the ACLU, it's the principle that matters.

[sinkingfeeling]

62. As a card carrying member of the ACLU, I think you are misreading the

whole case. The ACLU has filed suit on behalf of Phelps in only one state, Missouri, against one law restricting the protests at funerals, based on the language of that particular law. There have been several other states (including Florida, S. Dakota, and Kansas) to pass similar laws and Bush signed the federal version into law on 5/29.
ttp://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/2890486.html

The ACLU is contesting Missouri and Kentucky's versions of these laws.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[annabanana]

65. It. Is. Their. Job.

I expect no less from them. I am proud to be a card-carrying member.
I remember way back when, the Klan marched in Skokie Ill. with the support of the ACLU. (Of course the counter protest dwarfed their pitiful, bigoted showing - HA)

[karlrschneider]

68. Sorry, you're wrong. Phelps is obviously wrong too, BUT

either there's a First Amendment or there isn't. Popular speech needs no defense.

[sgxnk]

69. for the 1000th time

HATE SPEECH IS NOT ILLEGAL IN THE USA


***hate crimes are***

hate speech is not

*if* u believe in the 1st amendment, then you believe it DOES protect hate speech

btw, bill oreilly does NOT believe the 1st amendment protects hate speech

do u agree with him?

freedom of speech DOES include hate speech

case law shows that

over and over and over and over again

it *is* illegal in Canada, the UK, Germany, France, etc.

but in the USA we have a 1st amendment


freedom: it's what's for breakfast

[Bridget Burke]

70. Another proud ACLU member here.

Freedom of speech does include hate speech. The ACLU has represented scumbags before. That's part of their job.

The Right Wing hates the ACLU with a burning passion. So they must be doing something right.

www.cwalac.org/article_271.shtml

www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8541&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport

www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=4286&department=BLI&categoryid=commentary

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503030007

www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm

[zcflint09]

72. ACLU holds a consistent position as an organization

If they did not defend the Phelps clan if asked, they'd be hypocrites, plain and simple. They defend all 1st amendment rights, and regardless of is this case is won, 99% of people, even social conservatives, see Phelps as a moron of the worst ilk.

The ACLU is committed to preserving free-speech throughout the US. No matter the content of the speech, that's there organizational directive. However, most times they are protecting social liberals and that pattern will continue. This is an isolated incident.

[Crazy Dave]

75. I agree that it is isolated and I'm not writing them off completely

If they were gone or become insignificant things would definitely be worse. Just like when the right criticizes the UN for a small percent of corruption out of all the good but I'm still not ready to hand them any money yet.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hosnon]

73. This says alot about your commitment to free speech. nt

[Midlodemocrat]

80. Thank God for the ACLU. Proud card carrying member here.

[theboss]

82. I agree with Justice Black

Congress shall make "no law" means Congress shall make "no law."

Phelps can say whatever he wants whenever he wants it as far as I am concerned.

[Guy Fawkes]

83. Freedom of speech. Gd bless it.

I don't like Phelps, be he has the right to say what he says. And I support the ACLU.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. They piss me off sometimes, but they're right and I'm still a member.

[slackmaster]

87. ACLU is right but this is one reason I no longer give them money

:argh:

[6000eliot]

88. I'm a proud gay member of the ACLU.

If speech that I disagree with isn't protected, then no speech is protected.

[lies and propaganda]

90. this is why I love them

because I barely think Phelphs is worth toilet paper and these people rise above that feeling because he is still an american, piece of shit or not.

[LWolf]

91. The ACLU doesn't take any side but that

of civil liberties, whether it's the liberty to do something shameful, or not.

The ACLU is a neutral body, which is why I support them. Any legal body willing to support one person's constitutional rights over another's based on personality differences is dangerous.

I don't really think the 1st amendment applies to the funeral bashing, though, unless it is a public funeral. Are military funerals or memorial services automatically public? I know the Phelps contingent was turned back/away locally a few weeks ago without much problem.

[Lindacooks]

92. Card-carrying member here.

The thing about the ACLU is that they keep their sights on one thing: the Constitution. And they are consistent.

[Initech]

95. This just sucks.

On one hand, as much as I hate those disgusting pricks, I support free speech. And they do have that right.

On the other hand I'm pissed that the right continues to use the ACLU as their personal punching bag but when the time comes to defend their sorry asses, they'll gladly take the ACLU's help. Fucking hypocrites.

[Fleshdancer]

97. ACLU doesn't pick and choose who gets civil liberites and who doesn't

Whether we like it or not, Phelps has a right to be an asshole and say asshole things. We also have the right to voice our opinion about the fact that Phelps is a bigoted asshole.

[Pushed To The Left]

99. I'm a monthly donor to the ACLU

I think Fred Phelps and company are evil and I have a feeling their funerals might be quite interesting! However, I will still remain an ACLU supporter. By defending the speech of unpopular groups like Phelps, KKK, and NAMBLA, they are being consistent in their backing of the 1st Amendment. Like I heard an ACLU organizer say once, "Our client is the Bill of Rights."

The way to handle a piece of garbage of like Phelps is to send the patrotic bikers to drown him out!