ACLU Sues for group That Pickets at Troops' Burials

[Tock]

Just thought I'd post this for the folks who
allege that the ACLU won't stand up for the
rights of religious groups . . .

It's not that the ACLU likes these wankers, it's more that the ACLU stands up for the freedoms outlined in the US Constitution, and every now and then some well-meaning politicians pass laws that conflict with those freedoms. The ACLU are the folks who stand up for the Constitution, regardless of who the plaintiff is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072200643.html


By Garance Burke
Associated Press
Sunday, July 23, 2006; Page A02

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality.

The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps say God is allowing troops, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gay men and lesbians.

Missouri lawmakers were spurred to action after members of the church protested in St. Joseph, Mo., last August at the funeral of Army Spec. Edward L. Myers.

The law bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. Offenders can face fines and jail time.

A number of other state laws and a federal law, signed in May by President Bush, bar such protests within a certain distance of a cemetery or funeral.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message. It is asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and to issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced, which would allow the group to resume picketing.

"I told the nation, as each state went after these laws, that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps's daughter Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the church in Topeka, Kan. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."

Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said, "We're not going to acquiesce to anything that they're asking for in this lawsuit."

The suit names Nixon, Gov. Matt Blunt (R) and others as defendants.

[Teabagger]

Well, we'll see how this plays out. No right is absolute, without restrictions and conditions. Any right becomes limited when and where it begins to infringe on another persons rights. Thats Constitutional Law 101...the ACLU likes to be in the headlines so there you go. These loones lose the right to assemble and free speech when they "incite", which is tough to argue they are not inciting. I'm very surprised these assholes have not been hurt by some of the mourners. I do know if they showed up to a family member or friends funeral and tried this shit there would be serious trouble and the assholes would have a hard time carrying any signs, or walking around for 6 to 8 weeks.

[Logan13]

Just thought I'd post this for the folks who
allege that the ACLU won't stand up for the
rights of religious groups . . .

It's not that the ACLU likes these wankers, it's more that the ACLU stands up for the freedoms outlined in the US Constitution, and every now and then some well-meaning politicians pass laws that conflict with those freedoms. The ACLU are the folks who stand up for the Constitution, regardless of who the plaintiff is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072200643.html


By Garance Burke
Associated Press
Sunday, July 23, 2006; Page A02

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality.

The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps say God is allowing troops, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gay men and lesbians.

Missouri lawmakers were spurred to action after members of the church protested in St. Joseph, Mo., last August at the funeral of Army Spec. Edward L. Myers.

The law bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. Offenders can face fines and jail time.

A number of other state laws and a federal law, signed in May by President Bush, bar such protests within a certain distance of a cemetery or funeral.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message. It is asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and to issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced, which would allow the group to resume picketing.

"I told the nation, as each state went after these laws, that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps's daughter Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the church in Topeka, Kan. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."

Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said, "We're not going to acquiesce to anything that they're asking for in this lawsuit."

The suit names Nixon, Gov. Matt Blunt (R) and others as defendants.

They are trying to spin this as the ACLU sticking up for a "religious group" when in fact these groups are nothing but a bunch of pacifist leftists. Religion is not against war, just these nutjobs. They represent the weakness of many in this country who prefer to appease those who will ultimately destroy them and the rest of us. The inability of these types of people to stand up to those who wish to harm them is just crazy....

[Tock]

The question here centers around whether or not the government can regulate the right to assemble based on the content of someone's speech.

IMHO, giving government the power to ban any and all groups from assembling outside a funeral because of what they might say is giving the government too much power. If the gov't gets the power to regulate speech outside a funeral, then why not outside marriages? and then why not outside other places? Why shouldn't "loones lose the right to assemble and free speech when they "incite?"

Much better for the gov't to stick to filling potholes and waging wars, instead of regulating what people say in public.

[Phreak101]

The question here centers around whether or not the government can regulate the right to assemble based on the content of someone's speech.

IMHO, giving government the power to ban any and all groups from assembling outside a funeral because of what they might say is giving the government too much power. If the gov't gets the power to regulate speech outside a funeral, then why not outside marriages? and then why not outside other places? Why shouldn't "loones lose the right to assemble and free speech when they "incite?"

Much better for the gov't to stick to filling potholes and waging wars, instead of regulating what people say in public.

There are many more effective methods to getting your point across than picketing at the funeral of a dead soldier. That is tasteless and crass.

They are not banning the group from picketing either, they are just forcing them to stay a certain distance away from the funeral, which is fine.

I fail to see how the American Civil Liberties Union should have ANYTHING to do with protecting the right to picket, especially when the civil liberty of the families of these soldiers is being violated by invasive protestors.

[Tock]

They are trying to spin this as the ACLU sticking up for a "religious group" when in fact these groups are nothing but a bunch of pacifist leftists.

Ain't nothing pacifist about this particular group. Check 'em out. http://www.godhatesfags.com/

[Logan13]

The question here centers around whether or not the government can regulate the right to assemble based on the content of someone's speech.

IMHO, giving government the power to ban any and all groups from assembling outside a funeral because of what they might say is giving the government too much power. If the gov't gets the power to regulate speech outside a funeral, then why not outside marriages? and then why not outside other places? Why shouldn't "loones lose the right to assemble and free speech when they "incite?"

Much better for the gov't to stick to filling potholes and waging wars, instead of regulating what people say in public.

It's not in regard to someone's right to speech, it is in regard to families having the right to bury their dead w/o being harassed. If a group came to a funeral for a family member of yours just to yell negative remarks about gays, would that sit well with your family? Perhaps it was your mom(god forbid), and a group showed up with a bullhorn and yelled "she deserves to be dead for raising a sinful son that is queer" and then they start yelling out verses from the bible to push their point, would that be OK with you too? I would fight for your families' right to bury their dead as well.

[Tock]

I fail to see how the American Civil Liberties Union should have ANYTHING to do with protecting the right to picket, especially when the civil liberty of the families of these soldiers is being violated by invasive protestors.

If they picket on public property -- the sidewalk on the other side of the street from the church -- they don't affect the civil liberties of anyone.

US citizens have the right to protest, speech, assemble, etc, and to say what we like. Are you ready for the government to start reducing those rights?
Are you ready for the government to take it upon themselves to take away any rights at all? If so, then you're just the sort of complacent, compliant citizen an overbearing government likes to have around. You won't complain when they take other rights away, either.

[Phreak101]

Ain't nothing pacifist about this particular group. Check 'em out. http://www.godhatesfags.com/

That website illustrates the diversity of the word "moron" more than I can even begin to describe...

Where is www.gofhatesmurders.com or www.godhatesrapists.com...

With all the crime and filth in this world that represent true malevolency, why focus on a group that does not hurt anyone with their practices??

These people need to spend a couple weeks in Mogadishu or Lebanon right now, dumbshit redneck upper middle class with nothing better to do but preach against homosexuals.....just think if they donated all the money they use and raise to the missing children's foundation, or to cancer research.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

**** them all....

[Teabagger]

The question here centers around whether or not the government can regulate the right to assemble based on the content of someone's speech.

IMHO, giving government the power to ban any and all groups from assembling outside a funeral because of what they might say is giving the government too much power. If the gov't gets the power to regulate speech outside a funeral, then why not outside marriages? and then why not outside other places? Why shouldn't "loones lose the right to assemble and free speech when they "incite?"

Much better for the gov't to stick to filling potholes and waging wars, instead of regulating what people say in public.

My government doesn't do that very well. I'm all for allowing all types of freedom of speech, so long as my right of free expression is not infringed upon, like when I express my disagreement with them with a length of 2x4 oak.

[Phreak101]

If they picket on public property -- the sidewalk on the other side of the street from the church -- they don't affect the civil liberties of anyone.

US citizens have the right to protest, speech, assemble, etc, and to say what we like. Are you ready for the government to start reducing those rights?
Are you ready for the government to take it upon themselves to take away any rights at all? If so, then you're just the sort of complacent, compliant citizen an overbearing government likes to have around. You won't complain when they take other rights away, either.

Absolutely not...but then how does the family who is harassed by these people deal with this situation? Does it seem fair that just because these half-wits have the protected right to speak their minds, the families of these soliders GIVING THEIR LIVES TO PROTECT THE SAME RIGHT THAT GIVES THESE ****ERS THE RIGHT TO PROTEST should suffer?

I hate special interest groups with a passion, especially ones that breed hate. I hope they rot in hell...

[Tock]

It's not in regard to someone's right to speech, it is in regard to families having the right to bury their dead w/o being harassed.

That right does not exist.

Common decency would allow for that.

If a group came to a funeral for a family member of yours just to yell negative remarks about gays, would that sit well with your family?

I've been to funerals and memorials where these snakes did just that. Nope, it didn't sit well with too many folks, and I really did want to whup their bigoted Christian butts, but I didn't. Fact is, it was their right to peacefully make their point back then, which they did, and now it's still their right to peacefully make whatever point they want to make.

Makes no difference if they picket AIDS victims, or war casualties.

[Phreak101]

If they picket on public property -- the sidewalk on the other side of the street from the church -- they don't affect the civil liberties of anyone.

US citizens have the right to protest, speech, assemble, etc, and to say what we like. Are you ready for the government to start reducing those rights?
Are you ready for the government to take it upon themselves to take away any rights at all? If so, then you're just the sort of complacent, compliant citizen an overbearing government likes to have around. You won't complain when they take other rights away, either.

BTW not saying I agree with the government taking away rights or dictating what should be allowed and what should not, but you're out of your mind if you don't think the government is doing that already....

[Tock]

but then how does the family who is harassed by these people deal with this situation?

I'm open to suggestions.
The best I can figure is just to ignore 'em . . .

Does it seem fair that just because these half-wits have the protected right to speak their minds, the families of these soliders GIVING THEIR LIVES TO PROTECT THE SAME RIGHT THAT GIVES THESE ****ERS THE RIGHT TO PROTEST should suffer?..

Nope, not at all.
But then, as we all know, not every aspect of life is fair.

Until a better way to address the problem is devised, it's much better to safeguard the Constitutional right of free speech and freedom to assemble by letting these ignorant xxxholes say what they want, instead of passing laws that restrict what can and can't be said in public. If that happens, well, we become that much more like Iran.

-Tock

[Phreak101]

I'm open to suggestions.
The best I can figure is just to ignore 'em . . .






Nope, not at all.
But then, as we all know, not every aspect of life is fair.

Until a better way to address the problem is devised, it's much better to safeguard the Constitutional right of free speech and freedom to assemble by letting these ignorant xxxholes say what they want, instead of passing laws that restrict what can and can't be said in public. If that happens, well, we become that much more like Iran.

-Tock

You are a smart man Tock, I like the way you think.

[Teabagger]

I agree with your point Tock...intellecually. I just can't get there emotionally. I would feel the same if they did this to a gays funeral, or a straight war hero.

[Phreak101]

I agree with your point Tock...intellecually. I just can't get there emotionally. I would feel the same if they did this to a gays funeral, or a straight war hero.

Ditto

[Tock]

BTW not saying I agree with the government taking away rights or dictating what should be allowed and what should not, but you're out of your mind if you don't think the government is doing that already....

Of course it is.
Well-meaning legislators occasionally pass laws that intrude on our Constitutional rights.
Used to be it was against the law for an inter-racial couple to marry. Used to be that you couldn't vote unless you belonged to the official church. Used to be that you couldn't sell stuff on Sunday. Used to be that you had to pay a tax to vote.
People took the government to court to challenge the legality of those things, and one by one those bad laws were struck down. As long as voters elect dumb politicians to office, we're gonna keep having those problems. And somebody's gonna have to challenge those laws in court . . .

ugh . . .

[Tock]

I agree with your point Tock...intellecually. I just can't get there emotionally. .

Well, keep working on it.

It's no good to have a government based on emotion. Much better to have a system based on rules that apply to everybody, all the time, no exceptions.

[Phreak101]

Of course it is.
Well-meaning legislators occasionally pass laws that intrude on our Constitutional rights.
Used to be it was against the law for an inter-racial couple to marry. Used to be that you couldn't vote unless you belonged to the official church. Used to be that you couldn't sell stuff on Sunday. Used to be that you had to pay a tax to vote.
People took the government to court to challenge the legality of those things, and one by one those bad laws were struck down. As long as voters elect dumb politicians to office, we're gonna keep having those problems. And somebody's gonna have to challenge those laws in court . . .

ugh . . .

It does suck, it almost seems as if these politicians don't realize (or care) of the long term effects on this country when they appeal to a small minority by passing laws.

I live in chicago, and I can't talk on my cell phone while driving, I can't smoke in most of the bars (I don't anyway, but I want the right too dammit), and soon, I won't even be able to drink on the beach!

WTF! In Arskansas, they passed a legislature in the COURT that now requires teachers to teach Creationism with the same validity and clout as evolution. Talk about taking a step backwards...

I love democracy but when you put idiots in charge, bad things happen.

[RA]

I dont know if its been pointed out but there is a distance you must stand away from an abortion clinic...I dont see the a.c.f.u. fighting that.

[Teabagger]

See, I believe there were restraints placed on speech by local statue that worked. ie: profanity in public. It's impossible to go anywhere today and not overhear the loud mouth punks and adults cussing in public. **** this, **** that, bitch, bastard, MFer, etc. Where is my right to not have my wife and children exposted to this? Do they not go anywhere in public? That type of speech serves no purpose, there is no discourse there, just ignorant, vulgar speech. Civility used to be legislated...and by and large it worked. And the recourse was not always a ticket or fine...sometimes the offender just got bitch slapped and learned his lesson. But if that happened now, the guy would be charged with assualt, tried, convicted, fined, put on probation, made to go to anger management class, and now have a criminal record as a violent offender all because he smacked some punk for insulting his wife and children.

Our society has become so crass, graceless, and chaotic....and it started in the 1960's. There used to be a defense on the books in most states called "fighting words" and they pertained to attacks on things and people that were universally accepted as being protected, ie: your family, your dignity and honor, etc..Some guy called your gf or wife a bitch, whore, slut, or tried to sully her reputation he was in for a legal ass beating. And you know what...society was alot more polite in those days, and our right of freedom of speech was in no way compromised. You could bad mouth your government, politicians, laws, etc...but you had to maintain some semblence of civililty. PC run amok. You have to tolerate 13 year old little wannabes in the mall yelling "hey billy you cocksucker, **** you man!" to their buddy 30 yards away, but if a student at most college campuses is overheard telling a "nigger" joke...thats forbidden hate speech and the kid is put on probation or suspended...isn't one form of offensive speech just as protected as another?

I'm advocating for civility...and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us understand what that is, and for the white trash, and ghetto rats that don't, well after a few beat downs they will learn.

[breacherup]

I dont know if its been pointed out but there is a distance you must stand away from an abortion clinic...I dont see the a.c.f.u. fighting that.

I was going to point this out-I think the ACLU is doing this because a Republican Administration and House/Senate passed this.

[Phreak101]

I was going to point this out-I think the ACLU is doing this because a Republican Administration and House/Senate passed this.

If it's one thing the Republican party cannot STAND, its the ACLU. It wasn't them!

[Tock]

I dont know if its been pointed out but there is a distance you must stand away from an abortion clinic...I dont see the a.c.f.u. fighting that.

It's something like 12 or 15 feet. Do you have a problem with that?
Maybe you would like to start a new thread to hash out this issue . . .


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05337/616698.stm
Abortion clinic pickets would have to keep a distance
New city of Pittsburgh law proposed for clinic sites
Saturday, December 03, 2005

By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Darrell Sapp, Post-Gazette
Albert Brunn, of Stanton Heights, wears a wooden crucifix while standing in front of the Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania clinic at 933 Liberty Ave., Downtown.

Pickets had already been outside Planned Parenthood for an hour yesterday when Bill Depner rolled up, set down a briefcase plastered with anti-abortion bumper stickers, whipped out a tape measure, and took the distance from a guarded front door to the frozen sidewalk's end.

"Twelve and a half feet," he told the others. In a few weeks, he'd be illegal, even standing on Liberty Avenue.

Then Mr. Depner did what he usually does: He pressed leaflets on women going inside and shouted at them through the glass front door.

"Your future could be so bright," Mr. Depner yelled. "Everyone loves a baby after they see it. You can be a hero, but you have to be a stand-up girl."

Under a proposed city ordinance, Mr. Depner and his companions, who regularly stand, pray, chant and leaflet outside the Downtown clinic, would have to back off another 21/2 feet or face fines and possibly arrest. The bill is based on a Colorado "bubble zone" law upheld five years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Pittsburgh proposal would require pickets to set up at least 15 feet from any clinic entrance, then keep eight feet away from any person who gets within 100 feet of the clinic and asks them to back off.

"We need to be able to talk to the women," said Mary Kay Brown, an Indiana Township woman who joins the protests during what the clinic terms "procedure days" -- days on which abortions are performed at Planned Parenthood.

"Eight feet is going to be hard. I don't want to yell at people, and from eight feet back it's going to be hard to have a personal conversation."

Just how personal the abortion debate becomes on a sidewalk was played out a day earlier on the streets of East Liberty. Two students from Franciscan University of Steubenville were beaten by what they described as a gang of teenagers, apparently angered by their sidewalk protest outside Allegheny Reproductive Health Center. Pittsburgh police said one of the assailants reportedly pulled a box cutter and threatened a picket.

The students, members of the school's Students for Life chapter, have been a regular feature outside the clinic, where they attempt to dissuade women from entering to obtain abortions. Depending on the version, the assault was unprovoked or the result of rising tensions between patients and their families and what clinic director Claire Keyes calls their increasingly assertive manner.

"These students are very aggressive and so much in these patients' faces," said Ms. Keyes. "Just today a patient said she had said 'no thank you' four times and they persisted and she had to hold her boyfriend back because he wanted to push them out of the way and they just wouldn't stop."

Billy Valentine, one of the Franciscan protesters who witnessed the confrontation, said students are trained to avoid confrontations.

"We did not touch anyone and we did not block the door from anyone," he said.

Ms. Keyes said the young woman whose companions became involved in Thursday's street altercation returned to the clinic with her mother for a scheduled abortion after the Franciscan students departed.

Abortion providers describe the East Liberty incident as the most vivid example yet of what they have been seeing on sidewalks outside their clinics since last spring, when the cash-strapped city of Pittsburgh withdrew regular police patrols that had been stationed Downtown and in East Liberty to stop confrontations before they escalated. With police gone, said Kim Evert, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, protesters became more forceful and patients and families responded in kind.

"What it is is pushing and shoving," she said. "Oftentimes it's a parent of the patient, sometimes a passerby. A lot of times what the protesters will do is move in very close to people, want to give them literature, crowd them and, particularly for protective parents, the reaction is to push them away.

"We've had times when somebody's punched somebody."

Under the proposal introduced by city Councilmen William Peduto and Doug Shields, the 100-foot zone around the clinic would become a protected area in which persons approached by the pickets could decline to converse or accept literature and, upon that refusal, the protesters would have to keep at least eight feet away.

This zone would, conceivably, reach across Liberty Avenue, where one protester, Albert Brunn, a retired baker from Stanton Heights, regularly stations himself with brochures, a bloody crucifix around his neck, and intercepts women and couples headed toward the clinic.

"Give your baby the Christmas gift of life," he shouted after one young woman as she crossed the street and entered the clinic. Mr. Brunn said he has developed a technique for figuring out what pedestrians are headed to the clinic.

"When you're doing this for 15 years you can tell. It's like they have an A on their forehead," he said. "I can spot them from a block away."

While not quite a block, one anti-abortion activist has roughly calculated the distance 100 feet covers on the 900 block of Liberty Avenue. At 15 feet, the anti-abortion pickets would be setting up their signs in front of adjacent businesses, not the clinic. At 100 feet , they would be well down the street.

If the proposed bill is enacted, Mr. Brunn might need that block-long gift of prophecy.

[Tock]

See, I believe there were restraints placed on speech by local statue that worked. ie: profanity in public. It's impossible to go anywhere today and not overhear the loud mouth punks and adults cussing in public. **** this, **** that, bitch, bastard, MFer, etc. Where is my right to not have my wife and children exposted to this?

Well, there is no right to be free from coarse speech. Not in the US Constitution, anyway.

I agree with you, though, that there's an awful lot of coarse speech on TV, in public, in popular music, movies, etc etc etc. It's the sort of thing that shows the speaker to be of low character.

Well, there isn't much you and I can do about this, other than to be a good example for lesser men and women to follow.

Where is Miss Manners when you really need her?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Martin

By Miss Manners
Sunday, April 17, 2005; Page D08

The wearisome argument that pitches free speech against political correctness shows no sign of abating, even though Miss Manners has taken the trouble to explain that both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

Wouldn't you think that that would have cleared things up?

Well, no. Alarmists on both sides have muddied the argument beyond recognition to sensible people. Those who believe that there should be no restraints on speech whatsoever, no matter what the context, are shouting down those who believe that hostile speech should be censured without regard to context and who, in turn, are hurling insults back.

Even for those who want both peace and freedom, it is hard to hold two apparently opposing rules of behavior in the same mind at the same time, for use in two aspects of the same life. This is why your children cannot understand that clothing that you have given up vetoing for everyday wear (because it wasn't making any difference) is not equally permissible to wear to Grandmother's wedding. It does not explain why the same children fail to voice objections to the affectionate nicknames their parents use for them at home and yet vehemently prohibit them from using these in front of their friends.

With few exceptions, free speech, including the expression of unpopular opinions, is granted to us by law, and nobody is more grateful for that than Miss Manners. You could hardly find a less popular subject than the demand that everyone behave.

How is it, then, that her exercise of free speech includes denouncing a lot of what other people say?

It is because the law is not the only authority she recognizes for curbing offensive behavior. Fortunately, the law does not stoop to snooping into every aspect of your life. Fortunately, etiquette does.

People who vilify political correctness do so on the assumption that anything legal should also be acceptable anywhere. They do not really mean that. There are no laws against wearing torn jeans to weddings or calling your children Sweetums in public. Or, for that matter, against people breaking into the express checkout line ahead of you with three dozen items.

Etiquette cannot make laws, but it can make rules for specific situations. It cannot send people to jail, but it can send them to their rooms. Or to go play elsewhere.

Households and clubs typically make and enforce whatever rules are deemed necessary for their well-being. Penalizing members for cursing, shouting, interrupting, insulting others, talking on cellular telephones during dinner or marching up the stairs singing at 4 in the morning is a curb on free speech in the interest of preserving the tone desired by the members.

But should the sacred right be curbed among those in pursuit of justice, freedom and knowledge?

It routinely is. Nobody can figure out how to run a military service that fights for freedom if the forces can talk back to their leaders or gossip about the plans. Nobody can figure out how to seek justice in a courtroom if participants are permitted to interrupt or insult one another.

Hardest for people to accept is the idea that there must also be restrictions on speech in academic settings, where the noble pursuit of knowledge is presumably underway. But allowing people to air their prejudices about one another inhibits, rather than advances, that pursuit. That is why people should be legally free to do it, as long as the etiquette of the institution forbids them to do it on the premises.

[breacherup]

If it's one thing the Republican party cannot STAND, its the ACLU. It wasn't them!

I don't understand what you're saying-the law that keeps protesters a certain distance from soldier's funerals was passed in to law by a House and Senate controlled by the Republicans and signed by President Bush. My point is that the difference between this law and the law that keeps anti-abortion protesters at a distance is who signed them. Therefore the ACLU goes after the law signed by Bush and backs off on the law signed by Clinton.

[Phreak101]

I don't understand what you're saying-the law that keeps protesters a certain distance from soldier's funerals was passed in to law by a House and Senate controlled by the Republicans and signed by President Bush. My point is that the difference between this law and the law that keeps anti-abortion protesters at a distance is who signed them. Therefore the ACLU goes after the law signed by Bush and backs off on the law signed by Clinton.

I misread what you wrote, my bad.

[Logan13]

Well, there is no right to be free from coarse speech. Not in the US Constitution, anyway.
I agree with you, though, that there's an awful lot of coarse speech on TV, in public, in popular music, movies, etc etc etc. It's the sort of thing that shows the speaker to be of low character.

Well, there isn't much you and I can do about this, other than to be a good example for lesser men and women to follow.

Where is Miss Manners when you really need her?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Martin

By Miss Manners
Sunday, April 17, 2005; Page D08

The wearisome argument that pitches free speech against political correctness shows no sign of abating, even though Miss Manners has taken the trouble to explain that both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

Wouldn't you think that that would have cleared things up?

Well, no. Alarmists on both sides have muddied the argument beyond recognition to sensible people. Those who believe that there should be no restraints on speech whatsoever, no matter what the context, are shouting down those who believe that hostile speech should be censured without regard to context and who, in turn, are hurling insults back.

Even for those who want both peace and freedom, it is hard to hold two apparently opposing rules of behavior in the same mind at the same time, for use in two aspects of the same life. This is why your children cannot understand that clothing that you have given up vetoing for everyday wear (because it wasn't making any difference) is not equally permissible to wear to Grandmother's wedding. It does not explain why the same children fail to voice objections to the affectionate nicknames their parents use for them at home and yet vehemently prohibit them from using these in front of their friends.

With few exceptions, free speech, including the expression of unpopular opinions, is granted to us by law, and nobody is more grateful for that than Miss Manners. You could hardly find a less popular subject than the demand that everyone behave.

How is it, then, that her exercise of free speech includes denouncing a lot of what other people say?

It is because the law is not the only authority she recognizes for curbing offensive behavior. Fortunately, the law does not stoop to snooping into every aspect of your life. Fortunately, etiquette does.

People who vilify political correctness do so on the assumption that anything legal should also be acceptable anywhere. They do not really mean that. There are no laws against wearing torn jeans to weddings or calling your children Sweetums in public. Or, for that matter, against people breaking into the express checkout line ahead of you with three dozen items.

Etiquette cannot make laws, but it can make rules for specific situations. It cannot send people to jail, but it can send them to their rooms. Or to go play elsewhere.

Households and clubs typically make and enforce whatever rules are deemed necessary for their well-being. Penalizing members for cursing, shouting, interrupting, insulting others, talking on cellular telephones during dinner or marching up the stairs singing at 4 in the morning is a curb on free speech in the interest of preserving the tone desired by the members.

But should the sacred right be curbed among those in pursuit of justice, freedom and knowledge?

It routinely is. Nobody can figure out how to run a military service that fights for freedom if the forces can talk back to their leaders or gossip about the plans. Nobody can figure out how to seek justice in a courtroom if participants are permitted to interrupt or insult one another.

Hardest for people to accept is the idea that there must also be restrictions on speech in academic settings, where the noble pursuit of knowledge is presumably underway. But allowing people to air their prejudices about one another inhibits, rather than advances, that pursuit. That is why people should be legally free to do it, as long as the etiquette of the institution forbids them to do it on the premises.

Perhaps not, but we do have laws that address harassment, stalking, and private property.