limits to freedom of speech?

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...eral-protesters?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News

I think they do have the right of freedom of speech however that's not really the law I thing they are breaking. They are forcing their beilfs onto others which can go to regious freedom being dragged into play.

Also they are trying to suppress a group of people which is simlar to racism.

also this will be mentally scaring to these peoples' families. which is silmar to this http://newteevee.com/2008/11/20/19-year-old-commits-suicide-on-justintv/ but in real life.

thoughts veiws what's right?

 

[Dabuz]

this situation boils down to two very important points

"But Stephen R. McAllister, Kansas' solicitor general who wrote the amicus brief in favor of Snyder on behalf of 48 states' attorneys general, said the court could find for Snyder and still preserve larger speech freedoms by confining its ruling to funerals, events he claims are clearly sacred because they "cut across cultural boundaries from time immemorial.""

"A ruling against the incendiary group might lead to more civility, she said, but "the point of free speech law is you can't force people to respect others."

While in America freedom of speech is one of our major pros, this is a time where freedom of speech need not be protected, not only does it disturb the peace, but there are soldiers fighting and dieing for us, to protest and support the fact that they die is sort of like the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you"

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh boy, these guys again.

Someone very wise (was it from here? I forget...) that groups like the WBC are the first fail-safes to go off in the case of our rights being taken from us. The right to free speech has nothing to do with the message. The right to belief has nothing to do with the content of said belief. If these people wish to do this, then the very worst you can do is to file for harassment. Attacking their right to spread their message, however misguided it is, is, in the truest sense of the word, anti-american.

 

[fragbait]

Freedom of Speech has always been limited when it infringes on other's rights. In WBC's case (which I am ashamed to say is based in my state) they are infringing the rights to a private funeral (you get invited to these things for a reason) and right of peaceful assembly (they yell and scream their hate speech at the mourners).
And on another note, if I ever had the chance to take a swing at the lead Minster of WBC, I would do so with a smile.

 

[rvkevin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Of_2ykZpQ&feature=player_embedded

This is how I would counter their protests. There is no need to limit free speech.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

so inspiring no joke.

 

[fragbait]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Of_2ykZpQ&feature=player_embedded

This is how I would counter their protests. There is no need to limit free speech.

Others should take this guy's example.

 

[ballin4life]

While those people are definitely *******s, this still should be allowed under freedom of speech.

If the issue is privacy, then the problem is not what they said, but the fact that these protesters broke into a private area.

For someone who would suppress these protests, what standard would you recommend for deciding whether to suppress speech? How can you ensure that this standard will not be misused in other cases?