Posted on 10/06/2006 8:43:09 AM PDT by Alouette
SPRINGFIELD -- It's not a threat to sue. Yet. The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a broad inquiry into how Illinois is enforcing a new state law designed to keep picketers affiliated with a radical Kansas church from disrupting military funerals.
The ACLU has sent Freedom of Information Act requests to the offices of Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and several suburban and Downstate mayors and police chiefs to see how members of Westboro Baptist Church were dealt with and whether their free-speech rights were infringed upon.
In Illinois in the last five months, church members have shown up at seven funerals for soldiers killed in the line of duty, carrying signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers," and, "God hates fags."
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Yes. I do wish someone in the media would do a little investigative journalism. Or maybe they have and didn't like what they found out.
Makes sense. The Anti-American Criminal Union kills 2 birds with 1 stone.
1) It gives the appearance of impartiality by supporting a supposedly 'conservative Christian' group, and
2)It tries to embarrass ALL conservative Christians by giving the Westborons more publicity, hoping an inattentive public will lump all the above groups together as stereotypical bigots.
I think this is odd.
Just a few years back the ACLU was SUPPORTING laws to limit protesters at abortion clinics.
This "investigation" is just fluff to keep the useful idiot Trolls in the lime light just a little longer.
This amounts to disrution of the Freedom of Religion for the harassed parties, AND is inciteful to the offended families of deceased heroes.
Every family that has been victimized by these people should sue in state court for damages caused by "intentional infliction of emotional distress." This might possibly be federal, since they cross state lines to do what they do. Further, in such a case I would imagine that the funding of this allegedly non-profit church could be ferretted out - it'd be interesting to see who's paying the bills.
Actually, come to think of it, if this "church" is a non-profit organization, their records must be available for public examination at reasonable times, and copies must be available for a reasonable cost.
Can we bring noise makers and whistles? :)
Really? I'm a lawyer (albeit not a 1st Amendment one), and it seems that someone shouting "Your child is burning in Hell" at a funeral would constitute fighting words for any sensible jury. Heck, my blood boils when I see them doing this stuff on TV; imagine what it is like if you are there, and how much more so if it was your son (in the case of the Iraq protests) or your little girl. Me...I'd have to be physically prevented from either shooting them or from literally breaking their necks if it was my kid's funeral.
These ARE fighting words, and therefore not protected speech.
That's a pretty clever idea...
Someone needs to conduct a Phelps death-watch...
Then when it comes time to attend the funeral/burial...Watch who comes out of the woodwork to attend on their behalf...
Personally, it'd make a fine road trip for me...
Payback's a...
The Court has modified fighting words doctrine since Chaplinsky, (in Termineillo, Street, Cohen, and Gooding) and the current doctrine basically requires that "fighting words" be:
1) speech (print does not qualify) 2) delivered face to face (not across the street, not ten feet away) 3) directed at a specific person (general statements of opinion don't qualify) 4) inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace by its very utterance (reasonable person standard)
So as it currently stands, almost certainly will continue to stand, a funeral protest does not qualify as "fighting words".
Do you think this judge made the correct ruling?
Be sure to have lots of oversized pictures of Gore et ux and Phelps et ux. I have a plotter that can print up to 42" wide onto both paper and film at 600 dpi. If given enough lead time, I could print out posters.
But I'm sure the courts will come up with an entirely different standard for speech that offends and incites Muslims.
Defend the rights of the worst of us, you protect the rights of the best of us. I understand the logic behind it, but it makes me sick to my stomach.
Oh, that's right, ACLU observers were caught smoking a joint while trying to catch the Minutemen roughing up an illegal alien. I guess the right to protest is only supported by the ACLU when they agree with the agenda of the protestors.
I don't see any evidence that this is happening. Are you aware of any cases that demonstrate your point?
I don't entirely agree with the ruling. What is "face-to-face?" Is it someone placing their face 12 inches from yours? 2 feet? 5 feet? IMHO, the totality of the circumstances have to be considered.
IMHO, 10 feet away, or even on the other side of the road, is quite sufficient to be "fighting words" if the other characteristics apply in the situation. If these idiots are yelling at you from across the road that "your son/daughter/husband/wife" who was killed in Iraq for example or murdered in a school shooting by a madman is "going to Hell" or "burning in Hell" or something similar, then I'd consider that a sufficient provocation. I don't know what I'd actually do in such a situation (and I hope that I never need to find out), but I can tell you that if I was on a jury I'd not vote to find someone who responded to such a provocation to be guilty of anything but being a reasonable human being.
The entire theory supporting the "fighting words" doctrine is that the words bypass any kind of thoughtful response and lead directly, and *immediately* to violence. That is why they must be delivered, by definition, face to face.
If you have to walk a hundred feet across the street (or ten feet across the room) to punch the speaker, the words do not, by definition, qualify as "fighting words".
Walking or running 10 feet across a room can take less than a second. Again, this has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
But suppose there was a case of someone doing this from 50 or 100 feet across a road. If I was on the jury, I wouldn't vote to convict...and I don't think that many others would, either.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but no, it is not determined on a case-by-case basis. The Court has promulgated a very specific definition of "fighting words", and the doctrine cannot be used to regulate speech falling outside of that very specific definition.
The speech at issue here does not qualify as "fighting words" under any definition used by the Court, or any definition likely to be adopted by the Court.
Sounds like lawyers and judges inventing more BS that used to be solved by normal people without their help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.