(July 1, 2017 at 1:42 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(July 1, 2017 at 12:33 am)Minimalist Wrote: Current law in the US, as defined by the Supreme Court, is basically that the government cannot regulate speech unless it is basically an incitement to riot. But that only protects the speaker from being jailed. If he pisses someone off to the point of violence he runs the risk of assault. That is why permits are issued so that the police can have a presence to "keep the peace" if need be.
As it should be, I say. If you're so hurt, or motivated, by words, then you'll need to own your own actions.
Just so I'm open about this, I think WBC should be able to protest anything their pointy little hearts desire, and I'd defend that right even as I detest their message.
In a vacuum (which I know doesn't exist), would you take away their right to protest funerals with god hates fags signs?
There are side effects outside a vacuum. If you can tell them they can't do it, then slippery slope and such. But with no threat of slippery slopes, do you still care about their 'right'?
If yes, why?
