You Gotta Love The ACLU - Dont You?

[Lee]

What about my laughing smileys??? Nobody ever listens to me!!

Who are you again? LOL

Actually, new smilies is almost at the top of my 'todo' list so im pretty sure we'll be seeing some within the next few weeks on GWW

Regards,

Lee

[chadknowslaw]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rzBT62nF3...an%20Siegel%2C

Norman Siegel from the New York Civil Liberties Union.
Yes it was fox news with bill oreilly, but those were Norman's words coming out Norman's mouth.

300 feet is too far, ol

Thanks for that marc--listening to it now

[Marc]

I didnt name call, I called you dude.
Youre the one who said heartless bastard.

Asking Fred Phelps to please step so the family members from the funeral dont have to hear him harassing them is not going to prevent anyone from watching any adult movies or anyone from voting.
Thats such a weak argument for me.

Its just giving some respect to the families and protecting them a little.
The aclu wants to take that protection away, so the families can be harmed by this.

this website says the same thing Im saying, but theyre more articulate than I am
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006...al-protesters/

Beyond my anger and disgust with the hate this bizarre cult is spreading, I believe the First Amendment protects people’s right to peacefully assemble. I find it odd that the ACLU are not protecting the right of those who wish to mourn the fallen to assemble without being harassed by lunatic cultists.

These people are free to believe whatever they wish. The laws being presented are not infringing upon their right to expression. They can go 500 to 1,000 feet away and protest all they want. What these bills are attempting to do is no different than laws that protect political figures from protesters with reasonable buffer zones.

I hope the ACLU loses a loooot of members over this. I bet a lot of people are pissed.
If the ACLU wants to treat victims poorly and justify it over some legal technicalities and they'll hopefully see a drop in membership and donations.

[chadknowslaw]

Marc--

It helped a lot to listen to that. Now I know where some of what you are saying is coming from.

Phelps group always gets permits to demonstrate if they are required. They fax a notice to the local police and law enforcement before they protest so that officers will be on hand to keep the peace. Phelps group just yells and chants and carry signs. They don't go up to the mourners and shout at them.

One thing the former ACLU director stated was that the KY law would prevent any kind of protest--even a silent protest--within a 300 foot boundary--a boundary that has already been litigated and determined it was too broad. KY passed a law that they should have known went too far. The 300 feet doesn't sound like a lot until you pace it out--it is a long distance.

Fuck Phelps. I hope he burns in his own hell. But in this country, in order to keep the rest of us free, he gets to have his assinine rants across the street from funerals.

[XXXWriterDude]

I didnt name call, I called you dude.
Youre the one who said heartless bastard.

No, but when someone disagrees with you and you say, "I think it's repulsive" or "This is digusting," you are essentially attacking them personally. Arguing semantics doesn't make it OK. Six of one, half-dozen of the other; either way you cut it, you were attacking everyone who didn't agree with you.

Asking Fred Phelps to please step so the family members from the funeral dont have to hear him harassing them is not going to prevent anyone from watching any adult movies or anyone from voting.
Thats such a weak argument for me.

It has nothing to do with watching movies or voting. It has to do with the fundamental, American right to express one's self, whether through protest or through artistic expression.

If you selectively ferret out the individuals whose opinions you do not agree with and say "You are not allowed to express yourself," you begin the process to strip EVERYONE of their own rights to free speech. Being that you are evidently involved in the adult business, I'm profoundly shocked that you do not seem to get that. The rights of protestors are intrinsically linked to the rights of adult producers.

OF COURSE protesting at a funeral is loathsome action, and OF COURSE all of us feel for the families who are subjected to this. Nobody should have to put up with such a thing. But the law does not discriminate between which parties are allowed to have their say.

Nobody here thinks that Phelps SHOULD do this. And none of us would want it to happen at our funerals, or at the funerals of anyone we care for. But again, regardless of that, free speech is not something you can propose to limit. That's why it's called "free."

(Unless, of course, you're George Bush and someone is saying what a prick and what a liar he is, in which case he can apparently put you away for "treason.")

Still, the theory of free speech holds true. And yes, it is the very foundation this business is built upon. And any attorney worth his weight in law knowledge will tell you that.

[chadknowslaw]

there is another equally repulsive angle to this--:argue:

Phelps clan really thinks they are spreading the word of god by their actions. They think they are HELPING the mourners. To them, what they do is religious expression helping to spread the truth of the bible.

Religious and political expressions earn the greatest amount of protection. :gossip:

[Marc]

No, but when someone disagrees with you and you say, "I think it's repulsive" or "This is digusting," you are essentially attacking them personally. Arguing semantics doesn't make it OK. Six of one, half-dozen of the other; either way you cut it, you were attacking everyone who didn't agree with you.

you called protesting a funeral wretchedly callous and disrespectful and I called it repulsive and disgusting.

But because I disagree with the right to protest a funeral up close and you agree with it, then Im wrong and creating drama. Right?

It has nothing to do with watching movies or voting. It has to do with the fundamental, American right to express one's self, whether through protest or through artistic expression.

If you selectively ferret out the individuals whose opinions you do not agree with and say "You are not allowed to express yourself," you begin the process to strip EVERYONE of their own rights to free speech.

within 300 feet of a funeral? you bet

Look if someone wants to have a live abortion in Macy's Christmas window in NYC because thats how they choose to express themselves, knock yourself out. Serve shrimp cocktails invite the mayors office, what do I care?
But a funeral doesnt deserve it.

Could you fucking IMAGINE if you had a kid who died in 9/11 and you have a funeral for him and 50 people show up with signs and stand next to you telling you that your kid deserved it and theyre thankful he died a terrible death?

Thats what the ACLU is fighting for. Thats who their actions are aiding.

Being that you are evidently involved in the adult business, I'm profoundly shocked that you do not seem to get that. The rights of protestors is intrinsically linked to the rights of adult producers.

Being that you are human Im stunned that you support the rights of these people to stand next to a casket with a sign and yell at the family.
And yes, they used the words "next to a casket" and "in thier faces" in the video I gave a link to.
I'm not being dramatic.

OF COURSE protesting at a funeral is loathsome action, and OF COURSE all of us feel for the families who are subjected to this. Nobody should have to put up with such a thing.

Then dont support it.

But the law does not discriminate between which parties are allowed to have their say.

Theyre allowed to have their say
From 300 feet away. Its basical human decency and I believe its appropriate.
Its a funeral.

Nobody here thinks that Phelps SHOULD do this. And none of us would want it to happen at our funerals, or at the funerals of anyone we care for.

Then dont support him.

But again, regardless of that, free speech is not something you can propose to limit. That's why it's called "free."

Still, the theory of free speech holds true. And yes, it is the very foundation this business is built upon. And any attorney worth his weight in law knowledge will tell you that.

Man I wish I had a video of what these family members go through from these people protesting so you can see the effects of what the ACLU is fighting to protect.

[desslock]

Marc:

Just keep in mind .... political organizations and political parties are like Blue Plate Specials at a restaurant.

You have to take everything.... and no substitutions!

The ACLU is also litigating laws like the Patriot Act and they took COPA to the Supreme Court resulting in the Ashcroft v. ACLU decision, so that today you can enjoy running an adult site without being criminally liable to federal penalties if a crafty minor clicks into your website. As I like to say now... you can't have everything.

Steve

[gaybucks_chip]

Marc,

I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's appalling and repugnant to allow anyone to disrupt a ceremony honoring the life of someone who has died, and I completely agree that it's totally unacceptable for someone to be able to disrupt and further upset individuals who are reeling from the loss of someone near and dear to them.

What you seem to be missing, and what everyone has tried to say in this thread in different ways is... as soon as you start restricting speech in ANY way, whether it's preventing Fred Phelps from spouting his venom at people whose loved ones have died, or Nazis marching in a Jewish neighborhood, or people noisily disagreeing with President Bush's policies in Iraq, it is then that you start down a very rapid and slippery slope that restricts our speech.

The cost of living in a free society is that we cannot "pick and choose" which speech is "allowable." Already, the Bush administration has succeeded in stifling protest by creating "free speech zones" which are often blocks away from where Bush is. Why this is legal, I have no idea, but it is a very dangerous trend. Likewise, Gonzales and the religious right would like to restrict speech and expression as it relates to the adult industry, and that would not only be harmful to those who make a living in the industry, but prevent the many who enjoy that content in a safe and healthy way from having access to it.

ANY restriction of our rights to speak, demonstrate, assemble, or express would have an extremely chilling effect on what Americans can and cannot say. As reprehensible as Phelps speech is, and as hurtful as it is to those suffering the loss of a loved one, we have to accept and recognize that it is precisely *because* we live in a free country where that sort of speech is allowed that we have to protect that precious right in every way, or risk losing the right entirely.

[XXXWriterDude]

you called protesting a funeral wretchedly callous and disrespectful and I called it repulsive and disgusting.

Actually, what you said was:

You can all play tricks with words but at the end of the day, youre supporting Fred Phelps and fighting to open the door for him. Its repulsive to me.

The implicaton being that my support of free speech is repulsive.

But because I disagree with the right to protest a funeral up close and you agree with it, then Im wrong and creating drama. Right?

Nope, you can disagree with it all you want. But ranting and raving against those who don't side with you is what causes the drama. I wish you would stick to the topic. Sigh...

Look if someone wants to have a live abortion in Macy's Christmas window in NYC because thats how they choose to express themselves, knock yourself out. Serve shrimp cocktails invite the mayors office, what do I care?
But a funeral doesnt deserve it.

You're right. It doesn't. But the law doesn't protect funerals anymore than it protects across the street from the White House. And THE LAW is what we are arguing here, not ethics or morals.

Being that you are human Im stunned that you support the rights of these people to stand next to a casket with a sign and yell at the family.
And yes, they used the words "next to a casket" and "in thier faces" in the video I gave a link to.
I'm not being dramatic.

Not only are you being dramatic, you're being emotional. And everyone knows there's no sense in trying to have a theoretical conversation with someone when they are so obviously emotional. So since you are obviously so deadset on placing me alongside people like Phelps, I'm going to leave you to crawl back onto your high horse and gallop off into the sunset hooting and hollering about how everybody but you is wrong.

[Marc]

What you seem to be missing, and what everyone has tried to say in this thread in different ways is... as soon as you start restricting speech in ANY way, whether it's preventing Fred Phelps from spouting his venom at people whose loved ones have died, or Nazis marching in a Jewish neighborhood, or people noisily disagreeing with President Bush's policies in Iraq, it is then that you start down a very rapid and slippery slope that restricts our speech.

I dont buy it. I think that asking Phelps to stand 300 feet back from funerals respects the right of Phelps to protest the families, and respects the families right to have a peaceful funeral.

And thats how I feel.

[Marc]

So since you are obviously so deadset on placing me alongside people like Phelps, I'm going to leave you to crawl back onto your high horse and gallop off into the sunset hooting and hollering about how everybody but you is wrong.

yeah, I feel morally superior because I don't think a group of protesters have the right to stand next to a casket with signs and torture the family.
But whatever.

[XXXWriterDude]

yeah, I feel morally superior because I don't think a group of protesters have the right to stand next to a casket with signs and torture the family.
But whatever.

Yup, you said it: WHATEVER.

[gaybucks_chip]

I dont buy it. I think that asking Phelps to stand 300 feet back from funerals respects the right of Phelps to protest the families, and respects the families right to have a peaceful funeral.

And thats how I feel.

You're absolutely entitled to have that opinion, and I would defend your right to have that opinion, and to voice it, as would the ACLU. In fact, the ACLU would defend your right to say that you hope their donations go down because of their stand.

That's the whole point.

It's when you start placing limits on free speech -- ANY limits -- that you have problems. If you limit Phelps ability to speak freely, you could then limit the ability of protesters to protest legitimate issues. And 300 ft could become 500 feet, 1/4 mile, maybe even outside the zone of a community.

That's the risk.

I understand your concerns and respect your opinion and defend your right to voice it. But I don't share your opinion. And the fact that we can each be free to say what we want, without limits, is one of the freedoms that has made this country as great as it is.