Why Not Quit the ACLU?

In Defense of Decency
(Why Not Quit the ACLU?)
By Shale Stone
December 14, 2012

I have a gripe with the ACLU, to which which I have been a card carrying member since 1986. I believe in their goal to ensure that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is enforced by the courts when governments try to curtail those rights. I agree with their protection of free speech, even when I disagree with that speech. However, I disagree with some of the battles they have waged; disagree with their interpretation of free expression when it in fact goes against common sense.

Such was the case in 2002 when my ACLU went to battle for Sultana Freeman, an American convert to Islam who insisted that she take a Florida driver's license foto with a veil covering all but her eyes. She claimed it infringed on her religious custom - yet thousands of other Muslim women have ID fotos without a veil. She did have a mugshot taken without her veil in Illinois, apparently realizing that the authorities would insist that the state has a compelling interest to identify lawbreakers. Anyhow, after an Orlando Circuit Court ruled that she could not get a Florida Driver's License unless she had a foto of her face, the ACLU of Florida wasted good resources fighting this unreasonable case in the appeals courts, while many members such as myself, objected in letters to the ACLU and in the Op-Ed pages of the papers.

My contention was that if she were truly such a devout and traditional Muslim woman then she would not need a driver's license because her father, brother, husband or other familial male would drive her when she needed to go out in public. If she were a modern Muslim woman, then do as the others do and take a legitimate ID foto like everyone else. Most Muslim organizations supported the court's ruling as reasonable.

I don't know if other ACLU members quit the organization that year. While I stayed with them, I only renewed with the minimum $20 membership dues instead of my usual $50 or more. I stuck with the ACLU during this case that I thot did not infringe on a reasonable freedom of expression and was a frivolous lawsuit that they were pursuing. I guess my belief that there were other worthy cases the ACLU pursuid diverted me from dumping them at that time.

However, I have recently discovered that the ACLU has been representing the Westboro Baptist Church. Hence, the title of this essay, "In Defense of Decency" because I consider the people they are representing to be indecent, abhorrent, sociopathic scum. (I am trying to refrain from using my favorite vulgar term "asswipes" to describe the Phelps pack.)

For those not familiar with this disgusting excuse for humanity, the Phelps' started out with the Website "God Hates Fags" and was known to picket funerals of gay men who had died of AIDS in the 1990s and even those innocent gay men like Matthew Shepard who were murdered by other, similar scum. It wasn't until they started picketing the funerals of our war dead that most Americans now know of these (Oh, fuckit, I'm gonna say it) ASSWIPES.

Of course they were sued for their disruptions and they have counter sued, so the poor bereaved families not only have suffered their initial assault but often judgments of the courts went against them. Some governments stepped in trying to stop these egregious intrusions on people grieving their lost family member or friend.

Such was the case in Manchester Missouri, where they passed a reasonable ordinance limiting protests at funerals. Phelps and his wretched ilk could not come within 300 feet of a funeral or burial service or protest at all for an hour before or after the service. This reasonable restriction was first overturned by a federal court (what the hell were they thinking?) but upheld by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said it met First Amendment requirements.

So, you know my feelings on this matter and I thot it had a good outcome and would be a model for other communities to keep these asswipes from disturbing distraught families in future. However, in that article, which I read in October, it was revealed that the American Civil Liberties Union was representing Phelps and at the time was deciding whether to appeal.

I am so outraged to see that an organization of which I am a member has soiled itself by sitting at the same table as this shit. My passion immediately made me want to tear up my card but as of yet I have not dropped my membership because the ACLU does more to protect our freedoms than this one battle. But, I will see if they actually do plan to waste further resources with this scum by appealing this case, in which case I cannot continue to associate with it.

I have long accepted that First Amendment protections and free speech is for everyone, and understand why the ACLU has to crawl into bed with some whose speech is abhorrent. The example has been that they defended the Ku Klux Klan when they were barred from having assemblies or parades. However, the KKK did not attack grieving people and ironically even the KKK is against Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.

Free speech is one thing. Attacking vulnerable people and disrupting their solemn moments of grief is yet another. I should hope that the leaders of the ACLU would pull their heads out of their legalistic ass for a moment and realize that respect for human decency overrides some arguable free speech right. The court has refuted your arguments - let it go! Choose your battles more wisely or your base of support, all of us who have been members for decades may just abandon you in defense of decency.

 

"However, I have recently discovered that the ACLU has been representing the Westboro Baptist Church..."

Then it's time to quit the ACLU.

Hate speech is not free speech (IMO).

Great essay, Shale.

QP

 

"However, I have recently discovered that the ACLU has been representing the Westboro Baptist Church..."

Hate speech is not free speech (IMO).

For example:

"For those not familiar with this disgusting excuse for humanity, the Phelps' started out with the Website "God Hates Fags" and was known to picket funerals of gay men who had died of AIDS in the 1990s and even those innocent gay men like Matthew Shepard who were murdered by other, similar scum. It wasn't until they started picketing the funerals of our war dead that most Americans now know of these (Oh, fuckit, I'm gonna say it) ASSWIPES."

Yes, it's time to rip that ACLU membership card into tiny little pieces.

QP

 

I'm still considering it because this is so outrageous, but the ACLU does do the good fight most of the time and often protects civil rights, including gay rights. Don't want to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater.

I did send this essay to the ppl involved in this debacle. Just waiting to see if and what I hear back from them. Couldn't find a way to e-mail but if anyone wants to waste some paper and a 45 cent stamp:

Brenda Jones, Executive Director
ACLU Eastern Missouri
454 Whittier Street
St. Louis, MO 63108

Ref: Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester

 

Brenda Jones, Executive Director
Tony Rothert, Legal Director
John Chasnoff, Program Director
Joan Cheaney, Development Director
Diane Balogh, Communications Specialist
Grant Doty, Staff Attorney
Debbie Read, Executive Assistant
Ryan Parris, Development Associate
Steve Carroll, Legislative Consultant
To contact staff via email please use their first name attached to: @aclu-em.org (*this does not work for the legislative consultant)

 

I've always seen the ACLU as an awesome, but very dangerous force.

Now I'm reconsidering the awesome part...

My e-mail to them in case anyone is interested or wants to use it as a template:
The ACLU has lost my faith.

The Phelps' family, and Westboro Baptist "Church" are a hate group, a scam group, and their actions are detrimental to the whole human world. They live off of abusing the laws that are meant to protect all of us; and using their rights to oppress others. If your son was killed fighting for his country; shouldn't you have the right to mourn? If your 6-year old daughter was massacred; how couldn't their display of inhumanity tear at your emotional wounds? You are helping them make money off of other people's suffering. Your organization has been protecting Americans for nearly a century. Don't you see the choice you are making? This isn't just about freedom of speech; it's about freedom from harassment. I want the liberty to live in a world where I can pursue happiness; especially, if I'm trying to find some sense of peace in the loss of my loved ones.

Your saddened supporter and former beneficiary,
*my name*

 

here lies the dilemma.....when does free speech end? Delineating protected free speech, on the one hand, from gratuitous and vitriolic abuse, on the other is a tricky thing. But that's what makes a free society great. And frustrating, at the same time.

 

ALL SPEECH is free speech. I should be able to protest the government and what I hate about them. Ignorant, racist and stupid people should have the right to speak freely too, but they should also suffer their own repercussions!!

The Problem is that everyone who goes to that church is stupid redneck bigots. If people were more mature, that Church would go out of business, but unfortunately America is infested with morons!

 

Westboro needs no defenders, no champions.They are big boys and can stand for themselves without ACLU support.

And I do not think that the ACLU will be much help against the hacktivists of Annoumous!

 

All speech is not free speech. There are limits to speech. The most quoted is yelling fire in a crowded theater. There is libel, defamation of character. Inaccurate statements made in investing and scams are not free speech. You cannot issue threats against the president or members of congress under the guise of free speech.

Hate speech is not free speech. There is a difference between directing hate speech at a person or group, in effect threatening as opposed to expressing political views. A fine line but a very definite line, that has been crossed by this group.

 

You MUST be an Obama supporter with this type of rhetoric. All speech is free speech. This was not threatening speech, nor did I defend threatening speech or what the Government calls "fight words."


Hating a group of people is not illegal, speaking of your hate for a person or group is NOT illegal. I hate both, the president and 90% of congress.

We don't have free speech so we can talk about sports, in contrast, we have this Right, so that we may say very controversial things.

The fact that you responded in such a defensive manner tells me, that you, (like most Americans) only support freedom when it benefits you..

 

No, I think it was an expression of the quandary I find myself in that the soulless lawyers of the Missouri ACLU can't differentiate the limits of free speech when it transgresses on common decency. I support the Phelps freedom to say whatever they want to say, just like the KKK did. However, there is a time a place to honor other ppls right to assemble peaceably and honor their dead.


Fortunately, the courts so far agree with us on this and I will be even more pissed if the lawyers decide to appeal the court's decision that limited their free speech to a time and place other than grieving ppl who just don't want to be disturbed by a bunch of hateful asswipes for nothing more than their spite and publicity.

I think the asswipe family has to be aware that they have pissed off a lot of ppl and perhaps that is why they have exited Newtown when they saw the outpouring of supporters (including Hells Angels) show up. Even they must know that there are limits to their shit - legally sanctioned or not.

Quite frankly, a lot of us are just waiting for some pissed off agrieved soldier friend of a dead warrior whose family had to endure these assaults of the Phelps, to take out the whole lot of them with a sniper rifle.

 

Too bad there isn't this info for the national office.

 

I think there are decency ordinances that could easily be used on WBC.

I know if I went talking about god killing soldiers because of our fag government, it would take them all of a few seconds to get me, for disturbing the peace or whatever.

WBC is not protesting for a redress of greviances, they've made it very clear that there is no saving the US, and they're just having fun being turds.

Anyways, my point is that you can limit where free speech is, to a degree. Obviously in some cases, like moving a protest so that a politician cannot see it and doesn't have to deal with it, is sabatoging it. But with wbc, I'm not so sure.

Besides, it should NOT be hard to take their kids. CPS takes kids from good parents all the time, the least they could do is get the kids out of those so openly abusive homes.

Simply saying hate is your belief does not make hate sacred.

And all this aside, I do see why the ACLU is supporting them, and why they do not want precedents limiting protest locations or content.

 

Yeah, and there's the rub. I have been a member since 1986 and I think they could have passed on this one - for the same reason the 8th U.S. Circuit Court said. "The ordinance survives First Amendment scrutiny because it serves a significant government interest, it is narrowly tailored and it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication." In other words the municipal law did not infringe on the asswipe's freedom of speech just their freedom to cause anguish and disruption to a personal loss and funeral.

I am still mulling this - IDK when my membership is due - but I am none too enthusiastic about renewing.

 

Well at the same time as there being places that some speech is innapropriate and may be limited, you must consider that some speech is irellivent if the target cannot see it.

Consider from the asswipes point of view, the speech means nothing if it's not seen by people at the funeral. I mean, clearly nobody is going to decide that the asswipes are right, and start repenting and thanking god for killing their loved ones because of this fag nation.... but at the same time, if they can't tell THOSE people, THERE, at the funeral, in public, their message, doesn't it take the teeth out of the message? I disagree with the particular teeth that their particular message has, but I don't think we need MORE limits on speech, because they so often serve the interests of government, against the interests of those speaking.

Consider this: there are often "free speech zones" or protest areas at political or big business conventions. Wouldn't it be a better idea to hold up WBC's right to protest, get super conservative bought-and-sold judges to uphold that, and then use their own precedent to force them to allow the meaningful, closer, less obstructed protest of those big events or people? Maybe that way the president would actually SEE protestors, for example?

It's one of those things where it IS legitimate to limit it, BUT doing so puts a nasty precedent in place. The precedent simply will say that protesting can be limited that much more, in that many more situations, in that many more ways, if some official decides it's a bad protest. It won't be limited to the asswipes, it could have broad effects. Maybe not now, but maybe in ten, or twenty, or thirty years, it would be utilized in a major blow against free speech. And I'm not saying that the people who seek to stop the asswipes are fascists who hate free speech, I'm saying that you must consider how the legal structures you create can be used, abused, hijacked, and used to destructive or self-serving ends in the future, even the distant future.

Of course, I think this is a far cry from the driver's license photo. That's more a case of "my religion says something totally illogical and opposed to reality, now reality must accomidate me".

 

We must be talking about different things. I thought the church said he wanted to put gays behind a wall!? You guys are acting like he called for their extermination or something. He's entitled to his stupid opinion!

 

I don't wish to consider it from the asswipes point of view, as their point is to cause pain and to disrupt a funeral where ppl are already distraught enuf. The whole point I am making, that in the course of civil decency, ppl should be able to perform these functions without being attacked by nutcases. The Missouri law said no closer than 300 feet to the participants and to wait an hour on either end of the function.

Yeah, by then the crowds have gone and they would be crying in the wilderness like John the Baptist. But they are free to say any hateful thing they want.

The KKK is free to call ma a ****** lover if they wish, but had they come within earshot of me while at my wife's memorial I woulda gone ballistic. Fortunately, our memorial went under everyone's radar (I haven't heard of the Klan being that disgusting - just protesting Gay Pride picnics & such - which was cool, we shouted back at them and the line of pigs kept us apart)

That I don't understand. How do those things go unchallenged on free speech grounds, when they are about the same as the Missouri town's law. I see nothing wrong with protests of government/business functions being in their face. They are just pigs doing business - no personal loss involved.

And this is just the dispassionate lawyers' fear. All that 'precedent' and 'slippery slope' bullshit. My whole point is the ACLU should take on those cases that clearly try to limit free speech, but don't join forces with a bunch of Kansas Asswipes who are merely trying to gain publicity by being outrageous and causing others pain.

 

Very well said. Also, let's not forget that this so-called "church" is purposely trying to provoke innocent people, so it can sue the hell out of them. It's all done for publicity and profit. How can the ACLU not see that?

QP

 

Is that code for: Could you go try and find the info' for me, please?