As many of you know, the Phelps family out of Wichita, is famous for protesting at the funerals of military soldiers. They have made the news in Omaha as Shirley Phelps-Roper was arrested for allowing her son to stomp on the American flag. The ACLU is defending Phelps-Roper and has issued an interesting release about the case. It also cites the Nebraska statute that makes flag desecration a class III misdemeanor. On an equally shocking not in my opinion, Phelps-Roper is being charged with negligent child abuse, contributing to the deliquency of a minor, as well as disturbing the peace.
Questions for debate:

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?

2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest?

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendemnt? Why or why not?

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?

Not on this planet. It may be disrespectful - especially to Americans, who are unusually attached to their flag compared to the peoples of other countries.

If anyone were to stomp on my own beloved Red Dragon I'd more likely laugh at their stupidity for thinking that stomping on a piece of cloth that represents my country in any way equates with stomping on my country.

This is the general British attitude to the flag - more people own the Union Jack as a coffee mug or underwear design than as a big rectangle of cloth for hanging on a pole. Consequently it's very hard to understand how anyone would have such an emotional attachment to a symbol that they would get upset at its mistreatment. (And very easy to understand how to get US public and media attention at any kind of protest - burn, shred, tear, muddy or otherwise mistreat the US flag.)

2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?

I'm not sure they are negligent, but I think parents who avoid discussing anything vaguely political, who don't actively encourage their kids to vote and get otherwise engaged in politics and political issues are bringing up kids with something important missing from their lives. At least someone brought up like this is going to have opinions on things in the public sphere, and is going to have to learn how to argue and defend those opinions; too many people don't know how to to that - they either don't know what they think about most issues (because they never do think about them and never really learned how to think at all) or, if they have stumbled onto an opinion along the way, have no idea how to defend it without name-calling, fistfights, etc.

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest?

I don't think his child is in any way neglected. If the parents had gone off to a protest and left the kid at home to fend for itself - THAT would be neglect. But this is not.

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendemnt? Why or why not?

I think they are - freedom of speech does include the right to criticise the USA, and "flag desecration" - an odd choice of word - "desecrate" implies that the flag was somehow "consecrated" at some time, which begs the question "who consecrated it? God?" Way to separate church and state! - is no more extreme than saying "the USA sucks". It might not be pretty, but the only way you'll ever know if the USA has truly free speech is if you hear things you hate every now and again.

First and foremost, flag desecration is apparently illegal in that state. Permitting any minor to commit any illegal activity is technically considered negligence as far as I know....can anyone think of an example when that isn't the case? Your teenager might be permitted to have a beer in Europe, but not at an American table (legally at least). If you hand him a beer, the law considers this to be negligence. So I would argue that the law against flag desecration should not exist. Flag desecration should be protected speach, but otherwise the above pretty much answers the following questions:

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?
Again, not IMO, but if flag desecration is illegal than permitting your child to engage in illegal activity is considered technical negligence.

2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?
The above are all legal activities.

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest?
I would say that instilling in him a desire to violate the law is negligence, whether it is in the interest of civil protest or not. What form of civil protest are we speaking of? Throwing tomotoes? Vandalism? Blocking off a public road? Again, flag desecration should be covered under free speech. The problem is with the underlying law, not with expecting parents to instill a respect for the law in their children.

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendemnt? Why or why not?

Not IMO. This is one very good example of how such laws can turn wrong. Unless you use the flaming flag to vandalize another's property, this should not be a punishable offense.

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?

No. It's a free country. Personally, I think that parents who teach their children that God exists, that the "soul" persists after death, or that George Bush is an American hero are committing child abuse, but I recognize and even honor their right to do so.

2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?

No. It's a free country. It's no different than the first case.

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest?

I wish we could get away from such question-begging topics of debate in this forum. In direct response to Mrs. Pigpen, certainly there must be recognition that some laws are worthy of disobedience, otherwise we must remain loyal subjects of King George or, in extremis, collaborate in the extermination of the Jews. The moral thing is to recognize that one who disobeys the law does so at a definite cost to himself and to others, and should take responsibility for that. Obedience to law cannot be the highest good. At a certain age, children are capable of understanding this.

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendemnt? Why or why not?

Such laws are, of course, blatant violations of the right of free speech, and are prime examples of laws that deserve to be disobeyed.

I agree with the above, but I don't think that eight is an appropriate age for this lesson. In this particular case, my suspicion is that the county employed a law that is virtually never used in order to break up a protest. The lady is a member of a church which pickets funerals and holds anti-homosexual demonstrations that sometimes turn violent.

I agree with you that eight is too young to be involved in serious civil disobedience, but I don't think it's too young to learn about it (for example, about the excellent examples of Ghandi and King). I don't think that free expression of whatever sort, if practiced in this country, is a very dangerous form of civil disobedience. If there were a law in some town against giving the Hitler salute, I would not object to someone teaching his children that they should nevertheless give it.

Also I am sure you will agree that however obnoxious this woman's beliefs may be, it does not affect her rights. I would argue indeed that it's the most obnoxious forms of free expression that deserve the most vigilant protection.

People are often arrested falsely on the basis that doing so will "break up" a situation. I condemn this practice because I see it as deeply injurious to liberty. The police should wait until a legitimate law has been broken before they arrest. If we don't uphold that principle then public assembly is at the mercy of the police.

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?
No. At least not according to the definition of the crime under Nebraska law:



2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?
Depends on what happens at these protests.

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendemnt? Why or why not?

Yes. The Flag is a symbol, symbols have meaning... desecration of the symbol is expression. Unless that flag is trampled on while it is wrapped around a living person, there should be no crime.

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?

I doubt this charge will stand up. From what I can ascertain, Nebraska law defines child abuse as:



There is nothing about breaking the law or allowing a child to break the law. Unless a jury finds that this constitutes mental abuse, which could be possible depending upon the actual circumstances of the event, there is little chance of this charge resulting in a guilty verdict.

2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?

It depends. The atmosphere of the event could have been a dangerous environment. I wasn't there and the stories cited are missing of this crucial detail.

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest?

It isn't and that isn't what is being alleged. I have to conclude that it was the environment surrounding the protest that may have led to this particular charge. It is an error to conclude that because the son stomped on the flag that the mother is being charge with child abuse/neglect because of that particular act.

Let's be honest, this woman isn't entirely playing on the same field as the rest of us. Her known protest techniques include singing "God Hates America", stomping on/burning flags, insulting gays, thanking God for 9/11. Her beliefs include counting sodomy as a sin punishable by death, among other nonsense. The BBC did a documentary on the Phelps family calling them "The Most Hated Family in America." Hateful maybe...

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendment? Why or why not?

In many cases, maybe. The USSC has not struck down all flag burning laws, in fact it did not strike down the law which is ruled against in Texas v. Johnson. Today's court would might uphold this law, given the fact that John Paul Stevens was in the dissent in Texas v. Johnson, even though Scalia and Thomas were in the majority opinion.

And that person would learn the aforementioned lesson that actions have consequences. Charges would likely be dismissed if it went as high as the Supreme Court because the Constitution protects such speech freedom.



I agree with the above.

Amlord and Entspeak, this woman wasn't charged with child abuse, she was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Ummm... yes... she was. Which is why Nebraska's question refers specifically to negligent child abuse.

From the article:



Which, I'm assuming, is why Nebraska asked:

Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with?

Here's why I could care less what happens to this woman:
quote from the article linked.


In my opinion, these people thought that the kids wouldn't be prosecuted, and in their cowardice they allowed children to do their dirty work.

These people are literally scum. When Cindy Sheehan and crew came to Mckinney (a Dallas suburb) they had to have numerous police there to keep riots from breaking out.

How should that not be criminal? If I went down to a funeral of a dead drug dealer with 1/2 dozen people and began chanting epithets, and the police had to come, would that be criminal? Of course.

America doesn't benefit from these bottom-dwellers protesting. What are they protesting? It's really harassment. The flag burning is ancillary.

If they at least had the genital fortitude to stomp on the flags themselves I'd have a smidgen of respect. Instead, they use children. Kudos to y'all for standing up for her and here goes the liberal and literally dispicable ACLU defending another one of America's finest.

They should be ashamed of themselves. Then again, I'm beginning to wonder if some people even know what shame is anymore.

Of course not. Epithets aren't automatically fighting words by virtue of them being epithets, distasteful, disrespectful, etc. I don't understand conservatives' opposition to "Islamofacism". The Saudi government would readily agree with you about protestors being criminals by virtue of insulting Islam and "inciting" a riot.

As others have said, according to Nebraska state law, it does not come close to constituting "negligent child abuse". Stomping on a flag causes neither mental nor physical harm to the child. This entire case is absurd.

Absolutely. Burning the flag is a form of political protest, criminalizing political protest in any form that does not violate the rights of others is, on top of being unConstitutionally, grossly offensive. To limit the manner in which one can protest is censorship, plain and simple.

So if an act that is not violent and does not violate the rights of anyone incites others to commit violent acts which do violate the rights of another...the original act should be illegal. Flashback with me to the Danish Muhammad Cartoon controversy and the subsequent riots. If we apply your logic here Aevans, than you would be agreeing with the protesting Muslims, no? The cartoon, a nonviolent act which infringed on the rights of no one resulted in a violent backlash that included the destruction of property, etc. Therfore, the cartoon's creators should have been jailed for their "ancillary" action, right?

The ACLU doesn't proport to represent America's "finest", Aevans. It's purpose is to represent and defend acts such as this because if they didn't, no one would. Offensive uses of rights are the most important ones to defend; everyone respects free speech when something unoffensive is being communicated.

CP

I'm saying that there's a difference in a cartoon and standing at a person's funeral. Maybe CP, you don't see a funeral as something different than a cartoon in a paper, but I see this is as a difference in decency.

I see someone protesting at a soldier's funeral (or anyone's for that matter) as dispicable.

I would bet my next paycheck, which I'd put up against most anyone if not everyone's at AD's, that if I'd gone to the funeral of that man that was killed outside the NYC night club by NYPD a few months back and made comments that were inflammatory... that the police would've escorted me out of there or worse. Sharpton and Jackson would be on the front page of the paper talking about how this was a travesty.

Do you disagree? Watch the paper. Find someone that might fit this bill, and go down there and make terrible comments and otherwise be obnoxious. We're talking in the hypothetical here, but frankly, I'd state that the reason that these people are allowed to do this is because the ACLU will defend scum like this, as if protesting at a funeral is their right to free speech.

Here's a great definition of disturbing the peace:
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definiti...g-the-peace.htm


Are you saying that being out there chanting, making terrible comments, etc isn't disturbing the peace?

I personally find the Klan and racism as dispicable and deplorable. But what if the soldier was black and the woman was having the kid stomp on a picture of the soldier and making racist remarks? How would people feel about that?

of course... , that wouldn't be ok. Neither is this.

Aevans, c'mon, you know what my point was. The logic used by the protestors in Europe or those who supported its censorship is identical to the one you are using here. A harmless action results in a harmful one, so the harmless one should be banned. The line of logic is identical. I don't think it is decent to protest at a funeral, no, but that is irrelevant. Being decent and being legal are and should be two seperate things.

I'm saying that being out there chanting, making terrible commentc, etc. is protected by the Constitution of the United States. I'm not defending the actions as moral or "right" by my definition of either of those words, I am saying that this woman was protesting, something that the First Amendment protects, despite how morally reprehensible you or I think it is.

Well, my short answer to that is, "I don't care how people would feel about that". It would still be protected by the First Amendment. It is not illegal to make a racist remark and it is not illegal to stomp on a picture. It is despicable and deplorable...and those are exactly the kinds of acts we are supposed to protect, in the spirit of preserving free speech.

CP

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?

Ugh, these people are back in the news? I wish they’d crawl back into the primordial ooze from whence they came. I think the only child abuse involved here is in filling a 10-year old’s head with all the garbage that crazy family believes. And since there aren’t any laws against indoctrinating your offspring to hate, there isn’t much the rest of us can do about it. The law allows the flag to be used in protest. These rights can’t be conditional on the low-class and hateful nature of the person taking advantage of them. There may be some slim grounds for endangering the kid by his physical presence at a volatile protest, but I don’t know the law well enough to know if that will fly.

2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?

Most protests and rallies are peaceful, and I don’t believe those are inappropriate for children. The abortion clinics and the Roper’s nuttiness are different balls of wax. They are volatile situations in which violence frequently boils over. In those cases, having children there is inherently dangerous.

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest?

I don’t believe that it would be classified as neglect. Again, I think indoctrinating a child to hate should be a crime, but it isn’t.

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendemnt? Why or why not?

Yes, I believe they are. Technically, the flag is nothing more than a piece of colored cloth. Its symbolism is what gets everyone in a tizzy. But, people should be able to demonstrate their displeasure as well as their patriotism with the flag. In this particular case, the law supports Roper. The county attorney cannot rewrite law just because he feels the court is more conservative now than when the decision was made.

Unfortunately, all Polikov has done is provide the Ropers with another round of press attention.

There’s a picture of the kid standing on the flag here.

What’s really disgusting is that the ACLU attorney representing Roper is a lesbian. I don’t know how she could in good conscience defend a person like Roper. Conversely, how hypocritical of Roper to have a gay attorney, when she so vehemently hates gays.

Actually, that law is unconstitutional. The Flag Protection Act was struck down and the SCOTUS was quite clear that it violated free speech:


http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech...g/overview.aspx

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?

No. I don't believe teaching about political positions is abusive.

2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?

No. No.

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest?

The only possible way it could be is if the parents were involved with violent protests, which are illegal. This is not the case, so I don't see how it could be considered neglect.

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendment? Why or why not?

Yes. We have freedom of speech in the country and the SCOTUS has ruled that what the flag represents is more important than the flag itself.

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?
No, because the child has not been hurt.


2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?
Such parents would only be negligent if they allowed the child to be exposed to danger. Most protests are peaceful, and those that become violent usually don't do so without some frm of warning, even if its only a build up of tension. I've had my daughter to a demonstration once, and if I'd thought for a moment, or seen any sign of trouble brewing, then I'd have left. The notion that simply attending a demonstration constitutes negligence does not make sense to me.

Principle over opinion. I can't stand Roper or his opinions, however, his free speech should be protected. The least among us and all...

I do find some poetic justice in the fact the Phelps has to seek help from someone he claims to hate. LOL

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?

No, that's not child abuse. It's near impossible to prove psychological damage until the little darling grows up to be a gangster and dies in a drive-by.

2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?

If teaching hatred is part of the program, or if violence is a risk factor, that's the abuse. Physical risk to the child and psychological damage are the two touchstones.

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest?

Again, psych damage doesn't show up until later, and then it's too late. We don't have good laws for this. It's doubtful we ever will in a free society. Parents deposit lots of useless trash into their children, oftentimes without knowing what they're doing, and it really does depend on the child whether the trash sticks. If I go by my theory that children always rebell against their early childhood indoctrinations, then this kid will have no desire whatsoever to protest anything after reaching the middle teen years. Except maybe fundamental religious fanatics.

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendemnt? Why or why not?

They are against the First Amendment. We get an annoying real estate ad with plastic flag stuck in the ground every Fourth of July. I yank the offending piece of plastic out of the ground, snap the cheap wooden dowel into three pieces (a little symbolism here), and pitch it into the trash. That's not my flag and stop pretending it is. My flag flies high and proud, never touches the ground, is not made of stinking plastic and does not carry a real estate ad with it. I gotta tolerate this commercial desecration though. They stick it into the easement (city property) and they have a right to desecrate the flag.

And I have to tolerate the free speech of Phelps and crew until they break a real law. Colorado has restricted their protests to points far away from funerals, a move that does have some precedence with anti-war protesters. I think it's five blocks away, plenty of space to scope out where they are and figure out the least insulting and heartless procession route.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."- though atributed t Voltaire- Evelyn Beatrice Hall is the one that actually wrote it I think- and that sums up the entire debate right there.

I personally think ANY indoctrination into Christianity is outright abuse, but I can find no way to punish it without eventually restricting free speech and liberty.

Aevens- you do know that this is probably one of the best ways to remove liberty for EVERYONE- is to find the most repugnent piece of offal you can find, saying something that really makes you want to punch them in the face, remove thier liberties- and then, you set a precedent for removing ALL liberties.

I am part of the "patriot guard" - bikers that form human shields around soldier's funeral processions in order to keep these scumbags at bay.

THAT is the correct way to deal with them- form human shields, at parade rest- backs to the Phelps so they can see your colors- and perhaps something like "we all know Phelps "knows" little boys- in the biblical way" embrodried on your patch vest- silent counter protest- and ignoring them.

When you get the goverment involved, and allow them to restrict the rights of scumbags, that are NOT physically harming anyone- you have a recipe ripe for further goverment intervention into liberty.

Drug laws and confiscations of private property are a perfect example of liberties being given up to get scumbags, that come back to bite decent, law abiding citizens in the butt.

As much fun as it would be to deliver the Phelps gang a true beat down biker style- I know that it is counter-productive to freedom for all in the end.

Authormusician- I don't believe in the "free speech zones" either- they should be able to protest on public property wherever they like- they just can't venture onto private property- in other words- about 100ft seperation is reasonable to keep parties from hitting each other.

That is why groups like the Patriot Guard are formed- which encompases ALL faiths and party affiliation- I am happy to stand shoulder to shoulder wth a hard core right wing christian to provide protection for the soldiers family from these scumbags- it is MY right to counter-protest these waste of oxygen Phelps folks- and the correct means to do so.

If we turn our back on thier publicity stunts, if we shun and blackball them in our society- WITHOUT goverment intrusion, if we turn the channel whenever we see them on the news- they would cease to exist in any meaningful form, and eventually go broke.

Disgusting for you, admirable for me.

Marya's right about the 1977 Nebraska law being unconstitutional. Someone needs to notify the officer KETV interviewed. Because flag desecration is constitutional Aevans's contention that Shirley Phelps-Roper lacked the gonads to face trial herself can't be true. Believe it or not Fred Phelps and a few of his members are lawyers (or former lawyers, at least). They know what they can get away with and unless giving your kids signs with pictures of aborted fetuses at an anti-abortion rally constitutes negligence Phelps-Roper is going to walk.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't see the third link. This wasn't mentioned in the ACLU statement or the first article, and my suspicion is the third article got the story wrong. It isn't in Wikepedia either, for what it's worth.

Questions for debate:

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?
Not as long as we don't allow "patriot's justice" to be applied against flag desecrators. If it were a given that a flag desecrator was likely to get the EDIT kicked and Johnny Law would look the other way, then the charge would be reasonable. As it stands, no, its not.

2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? Can't make a blanket generalization. Were the Clinton's "negligent" when they had Chelsea with them on the campaign trail in '92? I think the primary criteria would be a} how old is the child? b} what is the child being exposed to? and c} What's the risk of violence? Taking a child to the WTO protests could easily fall into the realm of negligence.

How would that be any different than this case? Well, first off, there's no indication of the age of the child in question. Second, the child isn't being exposed to anything he's not getting at home already, and third, the risk of violence is pretty low. The Patriot Guard Riders haven't whomped the daylights out of Phelps and his crew yet, don't see it happening.

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest? He's not.

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendemnt? Why or why not? No, laws against flag desecration are not in the spirit of the First Amendment, but then the argument could easily be made the flag desecration itself isn't in the spirit of what the First Amendment serves, namely, "We the People." The simplest way out of the conundrum presented by this issue is an amendment banning flag desecration.

CruisingRam, I get your drift. The Patriot Guard is active at Colorado Springs funerals for our fallen soldiers, their families and friends. Very active. Lots of military funerals here, and I bet because of that, the 5-block or whatever restriction can be justified as keeping Phelps and crew from being mowed down in a drive-by. Or run down by someone losing it in a full-sized Hummer.

Y'know, some places you should just keep your trap shut and back slowly away. That's true about mountain lions and military funerals in the Springs, where the Second Amendment is sometimes considered the Only Amendment, and the right to drive steel mastadons is God-given.

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest?

I don't think there is any neglect involved.

If I were a parent, however, I would be very careful not to do this with a child. At that age a child is a sweet target for indoctrination. I am all for letting kids find their own way in certain situations.

While, as others have mentioned, eight years is a bit young, not all eight-year-olds are a like. A child with an IQ of 150 would be a twelve-year-old in mental age. A child at the low end of normal intelligence - IQ= about 90 - would have a mental age of 7.2 years. If a child has an IQ of 70 (1 point above the cutoff point for mild mental retardation) the mental age drops to 5.6 years.

This is not abuse or neglect, but the risk of indoctrinating a child this young goes agains the grain.

I'm not certain what Cindy Sheehan has to do with the likes of Fred Phelps. If people get worked up upon seeing a protest on the corner of a street or other public place, then that is their problem. Speech shouldn't be silenced simply because it is believed that people in a given area won't be able to handle it. When the police are called out to ensure security at a protest, they are protecting the first amendment, whether it's an anti-war rally or anti-abortion one.




The protesting at funerals is another completely different topic, I'm focusing on the flag aspect and how it relates to free speech and raising one's children. "Protesting" does have an important function, it draws the attention of policy makers and has been a hallmark of our history. The right to protest is in our constitution as an amendment and the "right to assemble" means exactly that, the question of whether it is a "benefit" or not is not a reliable bar that we can use. What you don't see as a "benefit," others do. Once again, it allows politicians to know that the people aren't too thrilled about a given issue. People at protests are vying for the citizenry's attention and possible sympathy towards their view. To block that in any way, is to block a credible and historical right that is virtually inseparable from our founding.



I do agree that the adults put the kids out there in regards to doing it, while they refrained from doing so themselves. The same kind of tactic was used in the 60's when children were arrested for protesting in a purposeful effort to fill the jails and to gain attention. However, their cowardice or ability to allow the children to express naive political beliefs indoctrinated in them, is not grounds for which society should judge whether or not a given act is tolerable.



It's a free speech issue and the ACLU continues to defend the first amendment, no matter who the client is. In defending the Phelps family, they continue a tradition of standing up for the bill of rights. They've represented the Klan and other organizations diametrically opposed to their "liberal" beliefs. It is a good thing that no matter who you are or what your beliefs are, if your rights are infringed, they will work with you, often pro bono, in order to protect your constitutional rights. Can you name any other organization that is this fair and consistent about the constitution?

1.)Does allowing your child to stomp on the American flag constitute "negligent child abuse" as Phelps-Roper is being charged with? Why or why not?

I would say not. Unless there is some evidence that these people are actually causing tangible harm to their children (not feeding them, not providing medical care, not providing shelter, not providing minimal education, and so on) I don't see how this can be "neglect." In fact, I simply see this as a case, all too common, of the law saying "We don't like you, so we're going to charge you with whatever we can think of that might stick."

I say tangible because it is very, very hard to determine exactly what harm is being done when a child is exposed to this kind of indoctrination. Perhaps these children will rebel against the way they were raised, as many children do, and become liberals and gay rights activists. Wouldn't that be nice?

2.)are parents who allow their children at political rallies, anti-abortion clinic sit-ins, anti-war protests, and other functions negligent as parents? How would that be any different than this case?

As already stated, as long as the children are not exposed to danger, there is nothing remotely criminal about this. I happen to feel that using a young child to express any political opinion -- even something like a tiny kid holding up as sign saying "Vote For So-and-So" is a grotesque act of shameless propaganda, but it should be against the law.

3.)How is this child "neglected" in any way by his parents instilling in him an intense desire to participate in civil protest?

This is not neglect. No matter how much it might break my heart to know that a child's mind is being poisoned by evil ideas, I must allow parents to attempt to raise their children in the way they see fit, until actual abuse or neglect occurs. In such a case, the law should step in with full force.

4.)Are laws against flag desecration against the spirit of the first amendment? Why or why not?

Against not only the spirit, but against the letter, in my opinion. One of the wonderful things about the USA is that it allows people to insult it with impunity. Thank goodness there are wonderful organizations like the ACLU around who force the government to maintain this level of dignity.

You err here, in my view, when you say "flag desecration itself isn't in the spirit of the First Amendment, namely, 'We the People'" and say that this is a "connundrum" that could be resolved with an anti-flag-desecration amendment. Do you not see that if alleged disrespect of the collective, or the nation, or the sacred institutions or whatever, were grounds for suppressing speech, freedom of speech would be void? Indeed, most governments that suppress free speech do so on precisely this ground. Moreover it is possible for someone to believe that certain national institutions, even the Constitution itself, do not serve the common good. We might disagree with him, but we offend liberty if we suppress his speech on that basis.

I don't think that an anti-flag-desecration amendment is necessary, since it hardly threatens the nation if someone treats the flag badly, and this is very seldom done in any case. For the same reason I suppose, such an amendment would not abridge free speech very much. But it would be an intollerable blemish upon American liberty, nonetheless, and inconsistent with all our principles.

This is where I disagree.

I believe that that disturbing the peace charges, of course which are used very liberally, would be thrown like hotcakes if this wasn't an anti-war scenario.

Disturbing the Peace IS against the law. I believe that if we acted like this in any other situation we'd be hauled off. First Amendment or not.

(Bold added for emphasis)

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. This isn't an anti-war scenario. From the original linked article:



Does this change your opinion at all? Would you say that disturbing the peace charges would be thrown like hotcakes if this weren't an anti-gay scenario? That the "liberal" ACLU is defending this woman's rights of expression only because they approve of anti-gay demonstrations?

I would add also that disturbing the peace charges should not be used liberally, but should be used only when there is genuine disruption of people going about their business. (Blocking doors and so on.) As far as I can tell from this article, this woman simply stepped on the American flag, and allowed her young child to do so, as a way of protesting America's tolerance of homosexuality. The proper reaction to such an action is to ignore it; to think to yourself "what a nut;" to be pleased that your nation is hated by the intolerant, and to offer them tolerance in return.

When one stomps on a flag, is there any real law being broken? What is it was a British or Canadian or Nigerian flag? Is that still abuse? The US judicial system is kind of pathetic.

Disturbing the peace may be defined as upsetting people, but there is a difference between doing so for the sake of it, and doing so to make a political point. The former isn't protected, the latter is. If not, is a political rally "disturbing the peace" if it *upsets* me and I report it?

I had a question about property, so I reread the original link.



I really question whether a ten-year-old has any idea what he's protesting. His life would probably be better if he were out playing baseball or football or whatever - being a kid rather than a mineature adult. The flag, however, belonged to the group, so in my opinion, it was their's do do with as they saw fit.

If dogs are property, then certainly flags must be. At least the flag didn't suffer fear or pain.

Obviously this Phelps spawn (or pawn?) is conditioning her child to stir up controversy, because this is what the raison d'etre for the Phelps clan. They think just about everybody is going to hell. One video I saw on the 'net was an interview with one of the daughters who said that if she were killed in an automobile accident, that she was going to hell, because that is one way God punishes hell-bound sinners. Because Fred told her so...

Just because Mom encourages her son to stomp on flags to stir up the feces doesn't mean that we have to reward her actions by paying attention to her. After all, they thrive on hostility and controversy.

If we ignored the Phelps Clan, would they go away? One can only hope.

IMO the boy was doing what his parent wanted him to do or did do. There is nothing wrong with having a law against flag desecration and how you can compare this to giving “giving the Hitler salute” is beyond my imagination. Nothing in the law comes even close to your example.

Imagine that we all had a few laws we didn’t like – should each of us be allowed to violate them?

This may be overturned on free speech grounds – maybe. This group are wacos and they need some protection but imo no relief from the laws of the state or country