Archive for Saturday, January 10, 2009

Westboro member sues St. Joseph

January 10, 2009

Advertisement

— A Westboro Baptist Church member has sued the city of St. Joseph over its ordinance banning protests at soldiers’ funerals.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, asks a judge to declare the ordinance and its enforcement unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri filed the suit on behalf of Shirley Phelps-Roper. She’s the daughter of Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps.

The St. Joseph city attorney did not immediately return a call seeking comment Friday.

Comments

mom_of_three 6 years, 4 months ago

I lose faith in the ACLU when they want to protect someone's right to make families feel awful in their time of grief to forward their own agenda. I don't care if it's free speech, I wish it was considered hate speech.

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 4 months ago

So you oppose the US Constitution when you do not like the speech.I hate the Phelps, I think they are the most disgusting people on the planet and if an illness befell them and made them suffer terribly before they died, I would not shed one tear, but consider it justice.But I am still an American and anything we do to curb the phelps had damn well better conform the the foundation of freedom, democracy and American values, if we fail those, then there becomes little that seperates us from the Phelps, or from Al-Quada.

Scott Drummond 6 years, 4 months ago

Far too many people like Mom these days. 30 years of Republican efforts to undermine public education and replace it with their corporate media propaganda have been successful. Got news for you, Mom, that ACLU lawyer is a better American than you are.

ASBESTOS 6 years, 4 months ago

"30 years of Republican efforts to undermine public education and replace it with their corporate media propaganda have been successful."Off the mark on that one, as the Ropers and the Phelps are DNC members.

ASBESTOS 6 years, 4 months ago

BTW, if the ACLU is so good why are they defending Child molesters and not accepting the 2nd amendment right as liberally in favor of owning a firearm as they are as "free Speech"? Why are that not defending the 2nd amendment right as an individual liberty not to be infringed to "keep AND bear arms?Riddle me that Batman!

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

asbestos: Because they have a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment, basically? In terms of defending the citizenry from the government, which has always seemed to me the real point behind the Bill of Rights, I think the 1st amendment is much, much more important now than the 2nd, which is largely useless, I opine. Not that I think that means we shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

Godhatesamerica 6 years, 4 months ago

AjiDeGallina is right!America has the crowning jewel of its constitution in the first amendment - but let's strip away those freedoms if there are words or beliefs we don't like! This is a nation of hypocrites - american soldiers are dying for our supposed freedoms, but let's rip that constitution to shreds if someone dare tell us the truth about the Bible, about the standards of God and about heaven and hell.The Westboro Baptist Church comes to you with a warning to flee the wrath to come! These are the prophets of God bringing a message of doom and instead of repenting and OBEYING GOD, you want to remove them from the landscape. Bad idea! That will not change the standards of God and that won't change the fact that God hates you and you're going to hell!America is doomed!

Phil Minkin 6 years, 4 months ago

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says… BTW, if the ACLU is so good why are they defending Child molesters and not accepting the 2nd amendment right as liberally in favor of owning a firearm as they are as “free Speech”? Why are that not defending the 2nd amendment right as an individual liberty not to be infringed to “keep AND bear arms?Riddle me that Batman!Please cite any case where the ACLU has defended child molesters. Also, do you know of any time the ACLU was asked to take on a 2nd ammendment issue? Generally, The ACLU resonds to complaints, they don't seek out cases. I'm willing to bet that if the NRA needed any help with a legitiment 2nd ammendment violation, they could ask the ACLU. Jonas is right. With ambiguous language and odd sentence structure the 2nd is open for interpretation.

Tom McCune 6 years, 4 months ago

Generally speaking, I support the principles of the ACLU, but this goes too far. It's just too much.As Justice Holmes so famously noted, the right to free speech does not include the right to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. It should also not include the right to act like completely unhinged wackos and flaming idiots at military funerals.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

This is all Bush's fault.Somewhere there's a guy with a straight jacket and a butterfly net looking for GodhatesAmerica.I agree with Newell_Post. I believe in the freedom of speech wholeheartedly. But what the Phelps do has little to do with getting their 'message' out. It's distasteful, despicable, and socially unacceptable. 'Fire' in a theater, 'bomb' at an airport....what happens when I tell the produce girl I like her melons? What if I and some like-minded morons decided to picket outside a nursing home with signs that read "Wrinkled Prunes Deserve to Die"? Seriously, this type of behavior is so disgusting even the Aryan Nation is sayin', "Man, that's in bad taste." I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to protest the war or even rail against the military. But doing it at funerals ?........no reason that needs to be 'protected'. Sorry.

ASBESTOS 6 years, 4 months ago

"Please cite any case where the ACLU has defended child molesters."They defended National Man-Boy Love Association known as NAMBLA. The point of the case was that NAMBLA can distribute materials on how to corner and molest boys, the best places to "find boys", and how to work on the parents.All of it was on their site and they were allowed to continue distributing this information that is commission of a crime. Giving a primer on how to sexually assault children is not "protected speech", same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"Also, do you know of any time the ACLU was asked to take on a 2nd ammendment issue?"Yes on the DC gun ban, they refused, and actually assisted the DC on their case on "limiting" the 2nd amendment rights of citizens. There were plenty of lawyers and members of the ACLU that left and demanded their money back and it was on the blog on the ACLU site just after the SCOTUS decison on the DC gun ban, and the ACLU came out with a position and policy statment saying they did not recognise the SCOTUS decision. Pretty arrogant fro a group supposedly "protecting the rights guaranteed in the constitution". So yes, we do kno that and it is well documented. Please start reading something other than the lefty bolgs."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""With ambiguous language and odd sentence structure the 2nd is open for interpretation."NOt according to the SCOTUS decison on the DC Gun ban. not only is the right considered and "individual liberty", but it aslo cannot "be infringed". That right is not "2 seperate rights" either it is the right to "keep and bear" arms.The SCOTUS was pretty clear on that and it was 7-2.

ASBESTOS 6 years, 4 months ago

"In terms of defending the citizenry from the government, which has always seemed to me the real point behind the Bill of Rights, I think the 1st amendment is much, much more important now than the 2nd, which is largely useless, I opine. Not that I think that means we shouldn't be allowed to have guns."Usually true until someone "takes the pen away" and the second makes sure you can get the pen back. That is the eintent and why it was stated "arms" and not "guns". Currently we have a MSM that is more impressed in Obama and his economic team, than actually making the Businesses and the government accountable for all the TARP money that we are giving away. So much for "freedom of the press" when they are in "starstruck mode" and forget the reason they are journalists, i.e. to infor we the people, not to sell Obama the Messiah, not do demonize Geroge the idiot" either. They are supposed to be objective and Caroline Kennedy and the Blagovitch is celarly showing selectivity in the media.Even lefty journalist are starting to get that.

texburgh 6 years, 4 months ago

Why is it that no one cared about the Phelps' protests until they went to military funerals? No one tried to protect our children from having to walk past them on their way in to school - yes, they picket schools. No one tried to protect us from them when we just want to enjoy a concert at the Lied Center or when we want to go to church on Sunday - they picket those places too. But tie it to a military funeral and it's gone too far. No one tried to pass a law to protect Matthew Sheppard's family at his funeral. But a soldier? That goes to far. Either it's free speech or it isn't. Don't be a hypocrite and say it should be protected outside schools or churches or at the funerals of homosexuals but not at military funerals. It's freedom of speech. Their filth today, my criticism of the president tomorrow.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

"Why is it that no one cared about the Phelps' protests until they went to military funerals"Don't know where you've been, tex, but noone's liked anything the Phelps' have ever done. And everyone's been railing about all of it too, including their protests at funerals for AIDS victims. When I was in school they'd congregate in the driveway of KJHK, across the street from JRP, usually railing against homosexuals. It was silly and not a little childish, but some friends "distributed" rotten eggs, water balloons, and stink bombs in their direction on a regular basis.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

ariadne,No lobotomies, all family members. Goes to show how ignorance is a 'trickle down effect'. And sheds light on how racial bias is passed along as well.

feeble 6 years, 4 months ago

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.htmlACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASENEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 4 months ago

Marion, been to any lynchings lately. Still loving your anti-semite hero? You really have failed in life, you are the bottom of the sludgepileAnd of course Asbestos is as big a liar as ever. I wonder why he must ALWAYS make up lies to make his point? It is a sign of a weak mind and broken soul.The ACLU has defended the NRA and does agree that there is a right to own guns, but also does not ignore the fact that the right to own a gun is part of a well regulated malitia.Further, they NEVER supported NAMBLA, but took a stance that age of consent laws need to be equal for same sex and opposite sex couples. They very specifically denounced NAMBLA and have never supported child molestation or molesters, it was an amicus brief. They also have no opinion on what the age of consent should be other than it should be left up to the states.However, racist liars like marion and asbestos still continue to spread accusations, lies, hate and ignorance because they are unable to do anything else. They are simply an embarassment to their families.

ASBESTOS 6 years, 4 months ago

"The ACLU has defended the NRA and does agree that there is a right to own guns, but also does not ignore the fact that the right to own a gun is part of a well regulated malitia."Negative and that post shows that you have not read the SCOTUS case at all. The case states you do not need to have a militia because it is an individual liberty. You have the talking points of ACLU down pat and that is exactly what was in their position statment on the DC gun ban case, which was defeated. And Yes the ACLU does not support the SCOTUS finding, so that means they are a political group and only cares about rights that the ACLU "endorses" and the rest are for interpertation. SO what I posted that you just said was a lie, is completely wrong, and your post porved that YOU are the liar. Here it is in the ACLU's own site their disagreement with the SCOTUS which is the law of the land. ANd It was a 5-4 ruling with 2 being very weak in opposition.http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html"Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties."Meaning they do not care what the court ruling is, they prefer their political agenda, therefore they are a gun control group and not looking out of 2nd amendment protections. Sorry Aji, but you are wrong and are drinking tall glasses of Kool-aide.""""""""""""""""""""

ASBESTOS 6 years, 4 months ago

The NAMBLA stuff and the case parts you don't read (the case was not about "age of consent" it was about keeping identities of journal entries of child molestation reports on the NAMBLA website):http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029""Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river. According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group. The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act." ""The "Journal Entrries" were considered free speech and not considered part of the evidence. SO confessions are covered by "free speech"?Think I am still lying? The ACLU is as corrupt as the rest of the entire political process.http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Rage/NAMBLARAGEPAGE.htmlIt is about having child molesters remain "anonymous", and not revealing the names of those that kept journals of their molestation.Has nothing to do with age of consent that was a lie by Aji.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v..."When the boy fought back, Jaynes gagged him with a gasoline-soaked rag and eventually killed him. *Jaynes then sexually assaulted his corpse.*"That is what ACLU "protected", and thousands of children are now "victims" because of ACLU protecting child molesters.Sorry Aji, you are a koolaid drinkinr and a blind ACLU liberal supporter. To hell with principals anyway, huH?

pooter 6 years, 4 months ago

Quote Godhatesamerica: That will not change the standards of God and that won't change the fact that God hates you and you're going to hell!----------------------------------------------That's right, God hates you so much He sent His Son to die for you.Watch Westboro Baptist get theirs:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT7xQJ...*

Scott Drummond 6 years, 4 months ago

"“Why is it that no one cared about the Phelps' protests until they went to military funerals”"Because there are far too many in this country who have been brainwashed in to considering all military members as heroes deserving of special rights and treatment. They also object to any criticism of police, firemen, george w. bush, most republicans and local sports teams. They view their small minded prejudices as patriotic and, apparently, do not fathom the consequences of their erroneous positions. Without them george bush would never have been President, American Idol would never have infected the TV airwaves and Rush Limbaugh would have been just another failed KC broacaster. They are suffered here daily and best ignored.

Mixolydian 6 years, 4 months ago

The Phelps......responsible for GWB....Rush Limbaugh... American Idol....and you regional sporting team.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says… "AjiDeGallina ... A self-confessed “American Expatriate” living in Peru."Hmmm - rings a bell somehow ... what previous member of the award-winning LJW's message boards spewed hatred of America, particularly its military, as an expatriate living in Peru...Could Aji be the dearly departed Americorps, perchance?*****As for whether the Phelps clan, or anyone else, has a right to protest at a military, or any other, funeral: The old saying goes 'Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.' Yes, there are Constitutionally protected rights in this country, including free speech. Those rights never include the right to intrude on anyone else's rights, such as the right of a family to grieve in peace free from harassment from morons.

tunahelper 6 years, 4 months ago

the phelps are NOT Americans, they should be deported to China or Iran. they are pussies.

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 4 months ago

Marion,Why are you an anti-semite and consider a man who writes that the Holocaust was not as bad as they say your hero?

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

scott!Say it ain't so, man!!!!!!!! Are you back to that absolutely embarassing, ignorant, miopic drivel......again!!?? You'd seemed to get better so long ago, given up that psychotic mantra. Man, I'm disappointed, and I'm completely sincere. You haven't been posting as much so I'm guessing you've gone back to that dark, lonely place where sad things warp your mind. Seriously bums me out, brother.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

asbestos: "Usually true until someone “takes the pen away” and the second makes sure you can get the pen back. That is the eintent and why it was stated “arms” and not “guns”."Bunk. If the government takes your pen away, you can wave your gun around, but it's going to get trumped by their tank, and then by their battleship. Can private citizens own (or afford) tanks, battleships, or fighter planes? Keep waving that .45 around.

Scott Drummond 6 years, 4 months ago

"such as the right of a family to grieve in peace free from harassment from morons."A "right," of course, that is found nowhere in the Constitution. This is exactly the sort of idiotic assertion to which I was referring in my earlier post. Such a basic misunderstanding of our Constitutional rights is truly frightening and can only lead to problems for our country. Call me psychotic all you like, Jaywalker, I am right & deep down you know it.

ASBESTOS 6 years, 4 months ago

"Because there are far too many in this country who have been brainwashed in to considering all military members as heroes deserving of special rights and treatment. They also object to any criticism of police, firemen, george w. bush, most republicans and local sports teams. "That says it all fro you, these are the people that protect your safety. Whiney babies like you could not protect yourselves at all. What a repulsive statment.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Bunk. If the government takes your pen away, you can wave your gun around, but it's going to get trumped by their tank, and then by their battleship."As I said that is why the 2nd amendment says "arms" and not "guns". You cand and have the duty to take on the government if it gets tryannical. From the Deceration of Independence:"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."If you have the ability you have the duty to rise up.You guys were big onto that when you were raising heck about George B., and now it is not a right?That is the problem with "interperative" readings of progressives on the Constitution, it usually favors more government control and less independence.Arms are allowed, and a "militia" can have a tank or a rocket launcher in a "well regulater militia" meaning in the Federalist papers "trained" on the use of the weapon which the discussion did include cannon.Read your history, and stop listening to liberal talking heads. They are no more correct than conservative talking heads.

Scott Drummond 6 years, 4 months ago

"That says it all fro you, these are the people that protect your safety. Whiney babies like you could not protect yourselves at all. What a repulsive statment."Some small minority of them may protect my safety, I concede, that point, but they are entitled to no special rights to be free of the Phelps' or any of the other assertions made here. They are humans like the rest of us. Since you contend they are entitled to special treatment, please describe what treatment they should get and the Constitutional basis for that belief.

ASBESTOS 6 years, 4 months ago

"Since you contend they are entitled to special treatment, please describe what treatment they should get and the Constitutional basis for that belief."A family that is greiving should be able to grieve in peace without being protested, all the rest of the furnerals are not protested, why allow it only for military and police? That furneral is a private affair. I think "free speech" should be allowed, but there are consequences. I think the "Patriot guard" should be able to throttle the living daylights out of the Phelps cult.All the rest of the humans that are greiving graveside are not protested so by your yardstick we should give these people the "same level of conditions", and since in our society it is not proper to protest furnerals and the majority are not portested, the soldiers, policemen and families should get the same consideration, Should they not? Are you suggesting that they should get "less protection" and "less constitutional portection" than any other geriving family at a graveside? Than the the normal greiving family? If so you do not agree with your own post and own premiss. This is why liberals lose so many debates on principal, circular logic.And BTW, the "Phelps Klan" is "not human", they are mutations both of spirit and faith. They should be sued beyond belief for their actions, and should suffer bodily injury for their deeds. They should suffer mightily.

Scott Drummond 6 years, 4 months ago

Asbestos:There is no Constitutional right to grieve in peace. The Constitutional right to free speech, therefore, trumps. The rest of your attempted argument is so circular and convoluted that it is really quite funny. There is a simple reason why "normal" families don't suffer such protests. Military families ought to just accept that such protests may come as the natural consequence of their loved one's actions in life.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

"Call me psychotic all you like, Jaywalker, I am right & deep down you know it"Sorry, man, you couldn't be more wrong. But what I do hope for deep down is that one day you'll understand why you're so wrong. Police, firemen, soldiers - these are people (the overwhelming majority) who give their lives to service of their country and community. I do not believe they are all heroes, there's good and bad everywhere. But feeling it's not just ok but justified to protest a funeral - anybody's funeral - is nearly as sick as the one's doing the despicable deed.And I wasn't kidding, brother, I really am disappointed because you'd seemed to move away from that 'extremist' mantra. I find you intelligent and interesting when you're not spouting the above.

Scott Drummond 6 years, 4 months ago

You've missed the point, Jaywalker. It's not my feelings, or whether I would ever engage in such acts (I most likely would not) that is important, but whether the Phelps crew have a Constitutional right to do so, or whether the military family has a Constitutional right to have such ugliness barred. On that basis, it is not even a close call.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.