Someone else made the point that what Phelps' crowd do is harassment, and harassment is not protected free speech. If they want to get their message across, they could go to the town hall steps, or to a mall.
you said, however, "IMHO, picketing some random SOB's funeral to spread a message of hate and bigotry fairly clearly crosses it."
Thus *you* are completely in the realm of regulating content that you don't like. And they're clearly not targeting 'some random SOB'. They're targeting specific funerals for specific reasons. You just don't like that reason. This is clearly political speech.
As for harassment, you've also continued to completely ignore the actual facts of this case. The plaintiff actually testified that he didn't see the content of the signs at the funeral. The protests were 1000' away. How exactly is this harassment, except that you don't like the message and are all bent out of shape about it?
If this case actually happened as you've consistently tried to portray it, with Phelp's gang of loons dancing on the guy's casket, you'd have a point, but this isn't what happened.
Also, please explain how this protest was completely legal under the new MD law that this case inspired? They *could* have been 700' closer than they were and still be legal under the law designed to stop this kind of thing.
It is way more fun to argue again the actions of an insane mob that over ran the funeral site, but that isn't what happened. Ignoring this fact won't make it what happened either. Basically, this is your 'porn causes rape' and why people think 'Libertarians are just Republicans who like porn.'
Hint: you'll do better ignoring the funeral and focusing on the web postings.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Thus *you* are completely in the realm of regulating content that you don't like. And they're clearly not targeting 'some random SOB'. They're targeting specific funerals for specific reasons. You just don't like that reason. This is clearly political speech.
As for harassment, you've also continued to completely ignore the actual facts of this case. The plaintiff actually testified that he didn't see the content of the signs at the funeral. The protests were 1000' away. How exactly is this harassment, except that you don't like the message and are all bent out of shape about it?
If this case actually happened as you've consistently tried to portray it, with Phelp's gang of loons dancing on the guy's casket, you'd have a point, but this isn't what happened.
Also, please explain how this protest was completely legal under the new MD law that this case inspired? They *could* have been 700' closer than they were and still be legal under the law designed to stop this kind of thing.
It is way more fun to argue again the actions of an insane mob that over ran the funeral site, but that isn't what happened. Ignoring this fact won't make it what happened either. Basically, this is your 'porn causes rape' and why people think 'Libertarians are just Republicans who like porn.'
Hint: you'll do better ignoring the funeral and focusing on the web postings.