I don't think the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to be a shield against hate-speech.
If Phelps was just bitching about the war, that would be one thing. What he's doing is wrong in so many ways, that if this law keeps his brand of pseudo-Christian hatred away from grieving families... Well, I think the First Amendment can survive this one.
The First Amendment is not all-inclusive. You can't claim First Amendment privileges for yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and you can't claim a right to free speech when your speech only serves (as an example) to incite a riot.
Likewise, hate speech isn't protected. And that's what Phelps and his pseudo-Christian zealots are doing. If they were merely protesting the war, I would have much less of an issue with it. I would still question the merits of protesting at a funeral for a soldier.
But they're not doing that. They are promoting an anti-homosexual agenda, and they're doing it at the expense of griefing families.
As far as I am concerned, free speech is a responsibility as well as a right. And they've shown they can't be responsible with it.
Is it bad that I'm so used to seeing the Phelps' picket that it hardly phases me anymore? Just part of the scenery here. He picketed my confirmation, my high school, and my college. It's a game for kids here to go walk by them slowly, hand-in-hand with a person of the same sex. In some ways, he's even been good for our community. I mean, here, there's almost no one on the fence about picketing issues or homosexuals being evil. I mean, there are people that support him, but for the most part, people who would be iffy on those issues or not like gays see him and don't want to be like him. I'll stop blathering on, I"m sleepy and I'm afraid I"m not being that coherent here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
With baseball bats.
no subject
no subject
But I fully support the baseball bat counterprotest.
no subject
It would be glorious....
no subject
Now, if they were to start reading their poetry to the Phelps crew... :)
When/if you see this twice, it because I was logged in under someone else's account.
no subject
If Phelps was just bitching about the war, that would be one thing. What he's doing is wrong in so many ways, that if this law keeps his brand of pseudo-Christian hatred away from grieving families... Well, I think the First Amendment can survive this one.
no subject
no subject
Likewise, hate speech isn't protected. And that's what Phelps and his pseudo-Christian zealots are doing. If they were merely protesting the war, I would have much less of an issue with it. I would still question the merits of protesting at a funeral for a soldier.
But they're not doing that. They are promoting an anti-homosexual agenda, and they're doing it at the expense of griefing families.
As far as I am concerned, free speech is a responsibility as well as a right. And they've shown they can't be responsible with it.
no subject