Kopikatsu said:
CM156 said:
Kopikatsu said:
CM156 said:
Kopikatsu said:
I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.
On the second part, as per the
Heller and
McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there.
Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.
Not odd.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Libel, slander, CDA, fighting words, obscenity (Miller vs California), clear and present danger, etc.
And I've point out before that the WBC already won their SCOTUS case 8-1, and case law basically says you can do what they do. Because what they're doing is being assholes. But it's not really any of the things you've listed.
I'm not saying that the WBC is breaking any of those, I'm saying that what the press/citizens can say has been and is currently limited.
Also, considering that the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of 60+ people, I imagine that at least some of them agree with part of the WBC's rantings.
Therefore, I would argue further limitations tread on dangerous ground as it is. The fact is, WBC is nothing more than annoying. They're not threatening anyone, they aren't inciting to violence. They preach a general opinion; one that 99.999^% of people disagree with, but an opinion all the same.
Nothing is really served (apart from sparing some hurt feelings) and much is put at risk by imposing a limitation on expressing an opinion 1,000 feet away from a funeral. Now I'm all for saying 'New Rule; it's got to be 2,000 feet now', but eliminating the speech entirely? No. No thank you.