You Gotta Love The ACLU - Dont You?

I had the honor of meeting Matthew Shepards mother at an HRC National Dinner. Wonderful woman.


The trouble with the Kentucky law is that they went too far and made the boundary too large. The boundary issue has already been fought in the abortion protestors battles. The Kentucky lawmakers had that information and they could have passed a law that would prevent Phelps' clan from "getting in the face" of the mourners. However, they chose to go with a larger boundary, a boundary that has not been upheld. A boundary that, in the abortion protests line of cases, would not be upheld--a boundary that has been determined to infringe upon free speech. That is why the ACLU would challenge the Kentucky law.

Nobody wants these assholes anywhere near them, and certainly do not support their message. The bitter pill to swallow is that in this country, having rights means that everybody has the same rights and we can't diminish vile repugnant hateful creatures like Phelps without diminishing all of our rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc

I cant believe people are fighting for the right of grieving family members to be yelled at and harassed at the funeral of a loved one.
Im so stunned im laughing now.
I hope a lot of ACLU members stop donating, because this is beyond vile.
No mention of this on their website, naturally
http://www.aclu.com/

---

You either believe in free speech or you don't. It's that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc

Why doesnt Matthew Shepherds mother have the right to go to her sons funeral without being harassed by a pack of animals? Especially after he was beaten to death and left out to die.
And you guys support her getting harassed.

---

Marc, it's sad that you equate us standing up for freedom of speech--the very thing this country (and this business) is founded upon--as being supportive of harassment and emotional suffering.

As I said in my other response, you either believe in free speech or you do not. There are no in-betweens.

The protestors are not allowed to get in the faces of those grieving. 300 feet away is not "in their face." Don't exaggerate.

You're looking at this from an emotional standpoint. It's bigger than that. It's the basis of our existence and our right to express ourselves in America. If you take that away, we have nothing.

Again, we have nothing.

If you want to equate that with me supporting people like Fred Phelps and anyone who would do something so wretchedly callous and disrespectful as to inflict further emotional distress upon those who are grieving for the loss of a loved one, that is your perrogative. But you would be dead wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

I had the honor of meeting Matthew Shepards mother at an HRC National Dinner. Wonderful woman.

---

I had the distinct privilege of interviewing Judy a couple years back. She was an inspiration. I made her laugh a few times during the interview, and it was just wonderful being able to talk to her. Of all the interviews that I have done over the years, including my favorite celebrities, my chat with Judy still stands out as the one that I am most proud of.

Ya that's the thing about free speach, you can't pick and choose what kind of speach is protected. I think the ACLU should help them fight it. I mean, Fred Phelps has done a lot to advance Gay Rights by his nuttyness and hate speach which makes even the most conservite christain cringe. I say let him speak, the funny thing is that his actions are having the opposite affect that he intends, and he his stupid to realize this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

Marc, it's sad that you equate us standing up for freedom of speech--the very thing this country (and this business) is founded upon--as being supportive of harassment and emotional suffering.

---

lol, im not against freedom of speech, Im against people being bullied and harassed at a funeral.
Its disgusting to me, and youre all like Oh well, thats life.
No one here cares about the victims or is saying anything about them. Only that the abusers have the right to abuse them, because its their right and the victims have to stand there and take it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

As I said in my other response, you either believe in free speech or you do not. There are no in-betweens.

---

Yeah I guess youre right, fuck the victims. They dont deserve protection, let them be scarred by this.

Quote:

---

The protestors are not allowed to get in the faces of those grieving. 300 feet away is not "in their face." Don't exaggerate.

---

The ACLU is suing to take that 300 foot barrier away, so they CAN get right in their faces.

I'm saying let them protest from a block away, which is what the current law says.
the ACLU is saying theyre allowed to protest right there at the funeral, right on the steps of the funeral home or wherever its held.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

You're looking at this from an emotional standpoint.

---

Its a funeral dude, its an emotional time. I dont think family members should be screamed at and told theyre going to hell and their loved one deserved to die.
Sorry you feel differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

If you want to equate that with me supporting people like Fred Phelps and anyone who would do something so wretchedly callous and disrespectful as to inflict further emotional distress upon those who are grieving for the loss of a loved one, that is your perrogative. But you would be dead wrong.

---

Well you ARE fighting for the right for Fred Phelps to do something so wretchedly callous and disrespectful as to inflict further emotional distress upon those who are grieving for the loss of a loved one, arent you?

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.

I hate seeing situations where innocent people who are grieving get bashed, and other people namely the ACLU is taking away the victims rights to have a little protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc

The ACLU is suing to take that 300 foot barrier away, so they CAN get right in their faces.

I'm saying let them protest from a block away, which is what the current law says.
the ACLU is saying theyre allowed to protest right there at the funeral, right on the steps of the funeral home or wherever its held.

---

Where are you getting your information marc???

First, if there is no information on the ACLU website then the ACLU is not suing for anything. The ACLU plays many roles, from taking a position publicly [which is not suing anybody] to filing amicus briefs [which is not suing but is an explanation of how they think the constitution should apply to a law] to joining a suit as a party. So far you have given a lot of hype about what the ACLU is doing and I think you are overstating the truth.

Second, the ACLU would not take the position that protestors have a right to protest on the steps of a funeral home. If the Kentucky Legislature is stupid enough to not take 5 minutes to call a 1st year law student about the long line of cases over a similar position, then they deserve to have their law held unconstitutional. 300 feet is too much and too restrictive according to our Supreme Court. A boundary is OK but it needs to be less than that; the KY legislature fucked up.

It is not a trick and I do not support Fred Phelps. This is a very narrow rule of law regarding consitutional freedom of expression. If all but 1 in 10 million are sickened by that expression then that is the very reason it needs to be protected--the constitution is supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, so letting the Phelps clan have their 15 minutes across the street from a funeral is actually patriotic.

If Phelps is silenced, then that opens up the door to silencing other unpopular opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc

Well you ARE fighting for the right for Fred Phelps to do something so wretchedly callous and disrespectful as to inflict further emotional distress upon those who are grieving for the loss of a loved one, arent you?

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.

---

Marc,

It really is time for you to come down off the high horse. If you want to think yourself to be morally superior to the rest of us so-called "heartless bastards," go right ahead. I can't stop you, but you're now starting to look like an argumentative bully who feels the need to put words in other people's mouths to serve your own interests. Tossing around words like "repulsive" and "disgusting" might make for good board drama, but in the end, it just makes you look like a childish name-caller who can't keep his cool during a debate of important issues. How 'bout you try and keep your emotions in check and respect the right of others to disagree with you?

Fighting for free speech is NOT the same as saying those who are grieving should be harassed, but such disgusting harassment is an unfortunate by-product of the free speech that you cling to while being part of the adult business.

Furthermore, the article in question is pretty vague about exactly what the ACLU is challenging about the Kentucky law. It does not specifically say that they are trying to overturn the 300-feet limit. You are jumping to conclusions without having the facts. Perhaps you should do a little grunt work and give the writer of this story or the ACLU themselves a call and find out exactly what the specifics of the challenge are?

If you want to paint us all as uncaring, unfeeling assholes, then feel free, but you're really just showing your own spots. And they ain't very pretty. Your quick condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you says an awful lot about what type of person you are. Who died and made you the moral compass of GWW? Quit being so judgmental. Nobody likes a self-righteous finger-pointer.

I suspect that you and I agree on this more than you might imagine, but until you learn how to have a respectful, courteous debate on this topic, I will not engage you in it any longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

Marc,

It really is time for you to come down off the high horse. If you want to think yourself to be morally superior to the rest of us so-called "heartless bastards," go right ahead. I can't stop you, but you're now starting to look like an argumentative bully who feels the need to put words in other people's mouths to serve your own interests. Tossing around words like "repulsive" and "disgusting" might make for good board drama, but in the end, it just makes you look like a childish name-caller who can't keep his cool during a debate of important issues. How 'bout you try and keep your emotions in check and respect the right of others to disagree with you?

Fighting for free speech is NOT the same as saying those who are grieving should be harassed, but such disgusting harassment is an unfortunate by-product of the free speech that you cling to while being part of the adult business.

Furthermore, the article in question is pretty vague about exactly what the ACLU is challenging about the Kentucky law. It does not specifically say that they are trying to overturn the 300-feet limit. You are jumping to conclusions without having the facts. Perhaps you should do a little grunt work and give the writer of this story or the ACLU themselves a call and find out exactly what the specifics of the challenge are?

If you want to paint us all as uncaring, unfeeling assholes, then feel free, but you're really just showing your own spots. And they ain't very pretty. Your quick condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you says an awful lot about what type of person you are. Who died and made you the moral compass of GWW? Quit being so judgmental. Nobody likes a self-righteous finger-pointer.

I suspect that you and I agree on this more than you might imagine, but until you learn how to have a respectful, courteous debate on this topic, I will not engage you in it any longer.

---

Um Ken...

Marc has a right to say what he wants to, after all, this is a thread about Free Speech ;)

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Um Ken...

Marc has a right to say what he wants to, after all, this is a thread about Free Speech ;)

Regards,

Lee

---

OH damn Lee! You say so little but so much ~





PS: Dammit Lee, where are all the good smileys? I could not find ONE that was laughing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Marc has a right to say what he wants to, after all, this is a thread about Free Speech ;)

---

What's up with that Lee?

Of course he has a right to speak his mind, and nowhere in my post did I say he should not voice his opinion. I simply intimated that he might find other, more RESPECTFUL ways of stating said opinion. Don't put words in my mouth.

The GWW rules of conduct (YOUR rules) state that personal attacks and name-calling are no-no's, and I would rather not have someone attack my character because I am merely participating in a healthy discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

Where are you getting your information marc???

---

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, lolol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

What's up with that Lee?

Of course he has a right to speak his mind, and nowhere in my post did I say he should not voice his opinion. I simply intimated that he might find other, more RESPECTFUL ways of stating said opinion. Don't put words in my mouth.

The GWW rules of conduct (YOUR rules) state that personal attacks and name-calling are no-no's, and I would rather not have someone attack my character because I am merely participating in a healthy discussion.

---

Ken,

It wasnt my intention to say you didnt want him to speak his opinion, I was mearly pointing out that you wanting him to express his opinions in a different fashion, are the same reasons im sure, that Marc feels Mr. Phelps should be kept 300ft+ away, his opinions could also be expressed a lot better than they have been ;)

Anyway... Back to weirdo Phelps and the ACLU...

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Anyway... Back to weirdo Phelps and the ACLU...

Regards,

Lee

---

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




{I may have the freedom to speak my mind but there is no obligation for anybody to listen}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc

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, lolol

---

Again, the issue of how close the protestors should be allowed is not addressed. Siegel fails to come right out and say, "OK, well, how close do you feel protestors should be able to get?"

Another thing that bothers me about this news clip--and Marc's posts--is that Siegel says, "You can't be theoretical about this." Such a statement immediately presumes to give Siegel the moral high ground (i.e., "If you don't agree with me, you're a horrible person"), and undermines the very foundation of discussion and debate, which is that it IS, in fact, based upon respectful theoretical exchange.

There is simply no room in mature debating for emotions. You either agree or you don't. Just because I think The Color Purple is not most amazing movie ever does not mean I should be able to say "You're a heartless, unfeeling freak" to anyone who does not like the movie.

That is the first and most basic rule of debate. To paraphrase Tom Hanks in A League of Their Own, "There's no name-calling in debate!"