Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
I agree with slingblade. There are limits to the geographic spaces in which our right to free speech may be exercised.
We may not yell "FIRE!" in an auditorium or other public venue (unless, of course, there is a fire).
We may not use vulgar or inflammatory language in public places where others can hear.
We may not cause a disturbance of the peace in any public or private place, except on our own property, where others cannot see or hear.
We may not threaten others with physical harm, nor may we slander others.
We may not stand in a right-of-way (sidewalk, street, parking space, etc.) and block traffic while we speak.
We may not vocalize our discontent with the government inside a government building, even one to which public access is granted.
We may not argue with a police officer in the course of his/her carrying out his/her duty.
Now, according to new laws in Ohio, (soon-to-be) Arizona, and a growing number of US states, we may not attend a funeral to express derogatory comments about the deceased. Legally this could easily fall under the "disturbance of the peace" umbrella already established in local codes and ordinances in every city in the civilized world.
We may not yell "FIRE!" in an auditorium or other public venue (unless, of course, there is a fire).
We may not use vulgar or inflammatory language in public places where others can hear.
We may not cause a disturbance of the peace in any public or private place, except on our own property, where others cannot see or hear.
We may not threaten others with physical harm, nor may we slander others.
We may not stand in a right-of-way (sidewalk, street, parking space, etc.) and block traffic while we speak.
We may not vocalize our discontent with the government inside a government building, even one to which public access is granted.
We may not argue with a police officer in the course of his/her carrying out his/her duty.
Now, according to new laws in Ohio, (soon-to-be) Arizona, and a growing number of US states, we may not attend a funeral to express derogatory comments about the deceased. Legally this could easily fall under the "disturbance of the peace" umbrella already established in local codes and ordinances in every city in the civilized world.
I know, and I agree. It really is a shame we find the need to put a spatial barrier between expressions of hatred and expressions of grief.
But lest anyone think I am advocating a legal denial of Phelps' freedom of speech, consider this analogy, or example:
I am freely allowed to criticize my government, but I am not allowed to go into the chambers of the House or Senate and start yelling my opinions, disrupting the assembly. If I do so, I will be removed. This is not a denial of my right to criticize, but a limit on the method of my criticism. There are other, more appropriate venues in which I may speak and be heard.
I have the right to voice my opinions, within certain limits. Free speech is limited. Slander and libel laws prove that, amply. One can't just say any old thing they care to say, and face no consequences for it.
Phelps has an equal right to spew the venomous speech he and his "church" daily vomit up. He does not, in my opinion, have the right to disrupt the funeral of my dead child to do so, any more than he would have the right to do this in the chambers of the House or Senate.
This example may be ill-suited to make my point. I'm sure I'll be quickly informed, if it is.
