What Westboro does isn’t political speech, but harassment and intimidation. You do not have the right to get in someone’s face and shout obscenities and threats.
I still stand by the old addage, “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”.
This was the first issue with which I disagreed with
Sarah Palin. I think these guys did have the right to do what they did. I don’t think they should have, but that is another issue.
You are correct and it’s really sad that the Supreme court didn’t see it that way
I agree, but is that what they're doing as such?
And, back to the same old question: “who determines if it’s harassment or intimidation”? The Obama government?
It goes without saying that Westboro is a disgusting example of the abuse of our GOD-given-First-Amendment-assured rights, but our Bill of Rights enshrines the right to say things that others may find offensive. (I know, I know, Westboro is way beyond offensive. But, to hear most on the left talk, so is the Tea Party movement and all its members.)
And, besides, Patriot Guard - a non-governmental, citizens group, has formed in response to Westboro, and are there to ensure that no family has to be bothered by those creeps. Which is how it should be, in my opinion.
I’m with Judge Alito
You do not have the right to get in someone’s face and shout obscenities and threats.You are absolutely right. The Supreme Court is redefining language by calling this "speech".
As much as I believe that the court erred gravely in this decision, and as much as I hate the Westboro lawyers (it's not a "church" it's a bunch of lawyers looking to provoke lawsuits), I do see one silver lining in this ruling:
It will make it harder for the Supreme Court to side with those who wish to prohibit all open discussion of Islam, already prohibited in Canada, the Netherlands and other places.
I'm not saying they won't be able to do it. Arbitrary power can do whatever it wants. But it will be harder to justify shutting down all open discussion of Islam while allowing the Westboro lawyers to shout obscenities and threats in the faces of grief-stricken mourners in a cynical and evil attempt to drum up lawsuits.
Agreed. Westboro can and should have the right to stand in the city square or in front of any government building and protest or demonstrate. Free speech IMHO was intended to ensure citizens could verbally shake their fists at the government without fear of retribution.
As you said, Westboro only intends to bully the grieving mourners of the dead to no point.
I’ve proudly ridden several PGR missions but never had any encounters with protesters.
The 1st Amendment means there is no prior restraint on speech. It does not mean the government has an obligation to provide personnel to protect individuals who go out and deliberately provoke other people by making insane attacks. The recent incident where Westboro went to picket the funerals of seven children who were killed in a fire is illustrative. There is no coherent reason for them to be there.
I fear we have reached a point where insanity is the only protected form of speech.
It is my understanding that they were no closer than 300ft.