namelesstavern.net

http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2006/WB060503.html


300 feet, the ACLU can't give people a 300 foot buffer to mourn in peace. This law doesn't even prevent the protests, it doesn't prevent them saying what they want to say, it simply prevents them from disrupting a services to bury the dead.

snippet from this article:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16841

"The law is so broad, Lutgens said, that people could unknowingly violate it by whistling as they walk down a sidewalk, or by stopping to chat on a public sidewalk near a funeral home. She said the law also could prevent pro-military groups from standing outside memorial services to counter the Kansas demonstrators."

Lutgens by the way is the ACLU attorney on the case. I was unable to find the actual law, but from everything I've read it specifically addresses protestors. While I suppose some innocent bystander could be suddenly conceived as a "protestor" and hence breaking the law, why not wait to defend that case? The idea that this law could prevent pro-military groups from their efforts is utter stupidity... if the nut job protesters aren't there, there is no reason for groups like the Patriot Guard to be there. Of course if that argument isn't ridiculous enough, I really don't think it would be that far of a stretch to assume that family of the deceased would simply include groups like the Patriot Guard in the funeral services if need be.

I guess you could argue that the ACLU is at least not being hypocritical in that they are defending a group who is in a round about screwed up way protesting homosexuality, but then again what about the rights of those burying a loved one to be able to say their respects without being drowned out by a bullhorn?

ACLU is about challenging any law that is a potential infringement on civil liberties - specifically unconstitutional, so I don't think they are being inconsistent here or anything. It falls under freedom of speech.

Granted the reactionary nature of the law is pretty obvious (specifically targeting those religious goofballs more or less), it does represent a subtle encroachment on the right to expression and protest.

The sad thing is, politicians never take the context of a law like that into consideration. Laws need to be extremely concise, or they will use and abuse any new power given to them in some malevolent way given the opportunity if it fits their agenda. They also like to use unchallenged laws like that as precedents for more encroaching laws. So in at least some ways it's understandable to be challenging this now, instead of later.

I don't think it's a big deal, but I can understand why ACLU is doing it. And that said, I'm still surprised some TUFFSTUFF marine guys who just lost a brother to military casualty wouldnt totally just flip out and MARINE NINJA CRUSH AND MAIM those dweebs if they pulled that at their funeral. It would solve the problem if none of them could use their legs for awhile. ;p I doubt they'd get more than a slap on the wrist from the authorities really.

Yamori wrote:It would solve the problem if none of them could use their legs for awhile. ;p

I approve of this solution.

Indeed. The ACLU is often perceived as a liberal group, but I would argue that they are quite the opposite. Their beliefs and aims are that the Constitution is paramount, and they will challenge ANY law they feel to be counter to it. Remember, it was the ACLU that filed suit on behalf of the Nazis that wanted to march through Skokie, IL a while back.

-Arlos

They should post snipers near the burial area. Any protestors who show up get shot through the skull on sight.

This would be a good law.

i concur

I want to be one of the shooters...


Blow those crazy assholes heads off and scream "WHERE'S YOUR GOD NOW?!!" but I would say it all maniacally and stuff to scare any more would be protestors.

It would be convenient too... We could just dig a mass grave and use the cemetaries holocost tractor to push em all in.

aclu doesnt seem to go out of its way to defend that pesky 2nd amendment. their official stance on it is fuckin stupid.

Oh thats a useless right anyhow Outdated and just plain silly. Only people need guns are small dicked rednecks cops and the army. HAving a gun around doesnt make you safer makes you more at risk. Thats why they dont defend the rtkaba

spazz wrote:Oh thats a useless right anyhow Outdated and just plain silly. Only people need guns are small dicked rednecks cops and the army. HAving a gun around doesnt make you safer makes you more at risk. Thats why they dont defend the rtkaba

So are you arguing that the ACLU takes only cases that defend rights or the rights of those that it deams worthwhile?

To be fair, the ACLU is mostly concerned with the 1st amendment. That's their primary focus out of the entire constitution.

-Arlos

IMO 90% of the laws we have on the books right now are simply not needed. This would fall into that category. I am fed up with regulations and people needing government to tell them explicitly how to live their lives. The Nanny State exists and it sucks.

I completely understand why this law was created. It is not trying to prevent funerals from being disturbed, it is actually trying to prevent these looney protesters from getting their asses handed to them by the aforementioned marines or their associates.

Pain can be a useful behavior modification tool, and sometimes you just have to learn that if you touch a hot stove, you will get burned.

arlos wrote:To be fair, the ACLU is mostly concerned with the 1st amendment. That's their primary focus out of the entire constitution.

-Arlos

We can only hope that someday they will read the rest.

Oh, I am sure they have. It's just that it's frequently the first amendment that is most impigned upon.

-Arlos

Tuggan wrote:aclu doesnt seem to go out of its way to defend that pesky 2nd amendment. their official stance on it is fuckin stupid.

Granted I'm not familiar with ACLUs history/stance on the 2nd amendment, but the NRA does kinda cover that base pretty well. That could be part of it maybe?:/

The ACLU doesn't defend the constitution so much as it defends what it interputs the constitution to be.

They do not recognize firearms ownership to be an individual right, even though I'm sure that a group of lawyers such as that must be capable of reading at least at an 8th grade level.

This has been a pet peeve of mine for some time. Libertarian groups, who pick and choose which rights they'll defend to get the best media coverage they can. The last thing the ACLU wants is to be branded by our unbiased media as "NRA lobbyists."


PS: The NRA does the same thing. Where the ACLU picks and chooses what they will "defend" the NRA picks and chooses where it will sell out it's members. See the ironically named "Firearm Owner's Protection Act" and where they stood on that, or the fact that they print more TShirts that say "Protect your right to hunt" than Protect your right to bear arms.

Pandering to the majority, to the middle ground, without realizing the fact that by giving an inch they give a mile.

The ACLU is run by a bunch of backward-thinking scumbags.

Minrott wrote:The ACLU doesn't defend the constitution so much as it defends what it interputs the constitution to be.

They do not recognize firearms ownership to be an individual right, even though I'm sure that a group of lawyers such as that must be capable of reading at least at an 8th grade level.

This has been a pet peeve of mine for some time. Libertarian groups, who pick and choose which rights they'll defend to get the best media coverage they can. The last thing the ACLU wants is to be branded by our unbiased media as "NRA lobbyists."


PS: The NRA does the same thing. Where the ACLU picks and chooses what they will "defend" the NRA picks and chooses where it will sell out it's members. See the ironically named "Firearm Owner's Protection Act" and where they stood on that, or the fact that they print more TShirts that say "Protect your right to hunt" than Protect your right to bear arms.

Pandering to the majority, to the middle ground, without realizing the fact that by giving an inch they give a mile.

The NRA doesn't pretend to be a guardian of civil liberties, but a gun advocacy group, Min. Vast difference.

The NRA also doesn't have a seething secular hatred of all things Christian, as does the ACLU. The San Diego cross story is a great example of what a turd organization the ACLU really is.

When Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein think a group has gone too far left wing, it really speaks volumes.

The ACLU hates anything non-liberal.

I say again: The ACLU pits itself against ANYTHING they feel violates the Constitution, or at the very least, the 1st Amendment. It doesn't matter if it's a left issue or a right issue. You think a bunch of rabid liberals would've defended the right of the Nazis to march through Skokie? The liberals raked them over the coals for that one, but they stood by their convictiosn that the first amendment gives equal protection to everyoen, regardless of what we may think of them.

They generally only APPEAR liberal because it's usually the right that mounts assaults oni the first amendment; either via attempts to strangle free speech in one form or another, or by attempting to interject religion into the political arena, which is ALSO counter to the 1st amendment. But they've fought against the left too, when the left encroaches on the 1st amendment.

Don't like them, fine. But to claim they're purely a liberal group is misguideded at best, and is clearly being ignorant of the real facts.

-Arlos

Taking the side that neither liberals or conservatives would generally support in a few cases does not make the ACLU a bipartisan or non political organization Arlos.

Wheres the aclu at on guns arlos ?

Leyuen, my point is still this: They will come to the defense of the first amendments, regardless of the popularity or political affiliation of the claimants. Yes, many of the members may well be liberal, but I don't see that as either here nor there. When it comes to the 1st amendment, they have been entirely consistent with opposing laws/decisions/etc that infringe upon it, period. If there were more laws being written by liberals that infringed upon the 1st amendment, they'd be fighting against the liberals more often. It's that simple.

Spazz: I'm not sure. As I said, they generally are concerned about the 1st amendment.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:Leyuen, my point is still this: They will come to the defense of the first amendments, regardless of the popularity or political affiliation of the claimants. Yes, many of the members may well be liberal, but I don't see that as either here nor there. When it comes to the 1st amendment, they have been entirely consistent with opposing laws/decisions/etc that infringe upon it, period. If there were more laws being written by liberals that infringed upon the 1st amendment, they'd be fighting against the liberals more often. It's that simple.

What you are saying hinges on your own bias. Minrott pretty much already said it. The ACLU defends it's interpretation of the first amendment, and that interpretation tends to be very liberal.

Lyion, seriously, wtf i?

The NRA doesn't pretend to be a guardian of civil liberties, but a gun advocacy group, Min. Vast difference.

Where did I ever say the NRA was? Where did anyone? The NRA picks and chooses which gun advocacy issues they will back as the ACLU picks and chooses which constitutional rights they'll back. The similarities end there and no others were implied.