ACLU’s Favorite Hate Cult Can’t Attack Families at Heroes’ Funerals
Posted on January 31, 2007
Judicial Watch: Court Rules Against ACLU, Protestors in Military Funeral Lawsuit
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law, announced today that a U.S. District Court in Missouri denied a request by the American Civil Liberties Union lawyers made on behalf of a member of the Westboro Baptist Church to prevent the state from enforcing its statute limiting protests “in or about†the location of funeral services (Shirley L. Phelps-Roper v. Jeremiah W. Nixon, et al., No. 06-cv-4156-FJG). The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law on behalf of protesters who disrupted military funerals by picketing and conducting other protest activities.
The court order, issued by federal Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., essentially adopts Judicial Watch’s argument that Missouri’s “funeral protection law†is well-grounded in Eighth Circuit judicial precedent and is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, Judge Gaitan specifically cites Judicial Watch’s amicus brief concerning the right of family members and friends of those killed in battle to mourn their loss. The judge writes: “…amicus Judicial Watch notes that Missouri also has an interest in protecting funeral attendees’ First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.†Judge Gaitan ruled that the ACLU’s client failed to demonstrate a “likelihood of success on the merits†of her arguments. Her request for a preliminary injunction was, therefore, denied.
“We’re pleased the court seems to recognize the right of funeral attendees to mourn those who died defending our country without being disrupted by protesters,†said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Unlike the ACLU, most Americans believe that mourners should be able to engage in quiet and reflective prayer at funerals. As the court noted, ‘…picketing soldiers’ funerals and belittling the sacrifices made by soldiers are intolerable actions…’â€
Nothing else to say but…
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News
Trackback URL
Comments
11 Responses to “ACLU’s Favorite Hate Cult Can’t Attack Families at Heroes’ Funerals”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
You can’t even resist twisting things, even when you win.
Give me a break.
They never could attack any group, let alone a funeral group.
Hasn’t the ACLU always opposed buffer zone statutes, most notably in Hill v. Colorado, a case where Colorado had a floating buffer zone around abortion clinics.
Am I correct then, in assuming you support buffer zones around military funerals, but not around abortion clinics?
Thankfully we have American patriots that would love to see the Sheenans of this world wound in their chain driven bikes and I am one of them.
http://www.patriotguard.org/
Jeff–
A verbal attack isn’t an attack?
WAY TO GO. IT’S ABOUT TIME. GOOD ON FOR THE JUDGE. JEFF MUST BE PART OF THE CHURCH. APPARENTLY HE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT AN ATTACK IS.
That’s exactly why it’s unwise to make assumptions about another person’s motives, Richard. Your theory is “simple, plausible, and wrong”.
I’ll concede that the verb attack is broad enough to include some forms of protected speech. However, with the derogatory tone of the subject of his headline, it seemed to me as if he was implying that ACLU was somehow advocating speech which would qualify as assault.
If Glib acknowledges that he intended no such implication, I will happily withdraw my objection on that point.
If I meant “assault” Jeff, I would have written “assault.” I wrote “attack” and meant “attack.”
Fair enough. I retract my objection. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I have to ask, though: when a story comes up about pro-lifers demonstrating outside of a clinic, will you use the word “attack” or “protest”?
“I have to ask, though: when a story comes up about pro-lifers demonstrating outside of a clinic, will you use the word “attack†or “protestâ€?”
There’s big difference between peaceful objection to killing innocent humans and viciously reveling in the death of a hero.
Anyway, the vast majority of abortuary demonstrations consist of peaceful things like vigils and prayers by septigunarian nuns…hardly akin to raving lunatics accosting grieving families (I’m talking here not just about the military funerals, but those of the Amish school girls and people that have died of AIDS as well). We’re talking about two different things here Jeff.
“There’s big difference between peaceful objection to killing innocent humans and viciously reveling in the death of a hero.”
So, we should make our decisions about what speech should be allowed by looking at the content of that speech? If it’s politically correct, we should allow it, otherwise, no go.
The Westboro Baptist freaks, while annoying, disgusting and horrendous, have never been violent. In fact, having seen both Phelps and anti-abortion protesters at Democratic events in Kansas, I find little to distinguish the “God Hates Fags” placards of Phelps and the aborted fetus placards of the AA protesters.
Can I ban everything in front of abortion clinics except peaceful things like vigils by septuagenarian nuns?
Yes, but he doesn’t give them credit for it. He believes they just take token pro-christian cases every now and then to throw off the scent. They don’t want anyone to figure out their secret communist plot.