Alright, I think I might have been understandably misunderstood. I'm NOT disputing the free-speech right of the Westboro Baptist Church. That is covered by the Constitution and I respect that.

By "time and a place" I simply meant that there are just moral boundaries people should not not cross to get their message, whatever that may be, across.

The way things play out in this situation, it's just hard for me to reconcile that while protecting this group's First Amendment right, we can not also protect the rights of the grieving family and friends.

There are classic Supreme Court boundries on free speech. Some examples:

• (the HS civics lesson) Yelling FIRE! in a crowded room, when there obviously isn't one; purposely endangering lives in the ensuing melee to get out.
• Child pornography although you Law & Order types would also know that there is an unclear definition on "simulated" child pornography that is generated by artists.
• Pornography in general--this is limited by what is reasonable and appropriate according to the standards of the community. Something that's on the shelves in a NYC porn DVD store probably won't be easily found in Salt Lake City; altho I'm sure Playboy is easily findable in both. Sorry for any necrobovinelesbonicbestialiphiles out there.
• Dispersing information within the Constitutional defition of treason.

Hope this clears things up.

__________________
WHYY pays their CEO $750,000 a year. So WHYY should I renew my membership? Seems they have no problems finding money and spending it unwisely.


And this is why you should donate to PACCA, not PETA:

In September, PETA made headlines in Vermont and across the nation for asking Ben & Jerry's ice cream to use human breast milk in their ice cream, instead of cow milk

Damn, how'd you find me out! Have you been reading my MySpace profile? There's a necrobovinelesbonicbestialphiles Meetup next week if anyone's interested.

On a serious note ... As you so excellently pointed out, there ARE limits to the right to free speech. The question is, is it unconstitutional to allow that dumbass group to preach their hate speech anywhere BUT military funerals? I respect the ACLU and what they do, but I hope the courts rule against them in this case. The church is certainly free to press their point of view anywhere else (they could even march in Skokie, IL if they so chose) but to proseletyze at a soldier's funeral is so far beyond the pale of disgusting that I wouldn't mind if it were banned. To use a legal term, it "shocks the judicial conscience".

As disgusting as the Phelps people are - and they are truly without shame - the Constitution protects their right to spout their crap. Most SCOTUS cases involving free speech have interpreted any restrictions very narrowly. Libel & slander require that the person spreading the slander knew that s/he was spreading lies. Inciting to riot or murder or mayhem is not protected because the outcome violates the rights of others (the targeted groups). Flag burning is considered symbolic speech (you're showing your disagreement w/ the government) and therefore is protected. The Court, no matter the make up, has resisted attempts to increase restrictions on speech.

However, given all of that, the right to speak your mind does not include a right to force others to listen to you or provide you with a venue. That's why the Phelps freaks are staying on public land (the street or sidewalk). The churches & funeral homes have a right to prevent unwanted visitors and the bikers have a right to stop in the street in front of the Phelps freaks. Yes, it's disgusting and upsetting for the families, but that's one of the consequences of our wide-open free speech clause.

This is simply not correct. In US. vs. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court said clearly indicated that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Here are excerpts from that decision:

The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people."

While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units."

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2004opinions.htm

The first clause of the Second Amendment explains why the founding fathers felt that the right of private citizens to own guns was important. But it does not automatically mean that if you do not belong to a militia, you do not have the right to own a gun.

At a gut level I agree. At an intellectual level i understand the jerks "right" to protest in public spaces as opposed to private land. Realistically, i think a lot of these rabid homophobe freaks will succeed quicker than just about anything to bring in acceptance of gays in the military in the process of being beat up multiple times privately. And military funerals will all move to private lots well away from public thoroughfares, which is probably for the best, unfortunately.