Gorzaloon wrote: “One has to look at the intent. the intent is not to express, not to preach, but to outrage.”
How are we to know their intent? Even so, where does it say the government has the right to regulate speech intended to outrage? An outrage for one group is not necessarily an outrage to another. Where do you draw the line? So long as they aren’t advocating violence or trespassing or breaking other laws unrelated to free speech, where is the legal right to stop them? When the neo-Nazis marched in Skokie, many people made arguments similar to yours, but the neo-Nazis were allowed to march.
Again, you completely misunderstand the entire case. The government did NOT stop them from protesting. The government did NOT fine them. A civil suit was brought by the family of a Marine who's funeral was protested.
As an example, I could stand outside your home with a large sign stating that "CitizneUSA molests goats." There really wouldn't be anything that the government could do about it, asd long as I'm not on your private property and I'm not causing a traffic hazard. The action would be within my 1st Amendment rights. However, my "free speech" would certainly be actionable by you, and I have no doubt that you'd be on the phone to a lawyer to see how you could shut me up. And you would be well within your rights to do so.
Mark