Cage, I very strongly agree with your premise. Funeral protesting is deplorable and I strongly condemn it. If I had my way, the family would be well within their rights to pull out guns and shut the mouths of these "funeral protesters" permanently. I would gladly pull the trigger, if it were legal to do so.
But, please do not miss my point that this is really not a first amendment issue. There are many other things that funeral protesters could be sued for, which is why I think the SCOTUS should not be addressing the first amendment in this case. There are many other ways to stop funeral protests and sue funeral protesters in civil court without the SCOTUS bringing the first amendment into this.
Freedom of speech should not be curtailed under any circumstances, but written or spoken lies, defamation of character, threatening gestures, threatening postures, intimidation, trespassing, harassment, disturbing the peace, intent to cause a riot, and unlawful character assassination are issues that can and should be litigated. The first amendment does not protect any of those crimes.
The Constitutional right to Own and bear firearms, for example, does give you the right to shoot someone with whom you disagree.
You are correct, but I respectfully disagree with using this as an analogy to the first amendment argument, my friend. A bullet causes defined and measurable damage. How does one measure and define the damage caused by words? Who gets to set the standard? You? Me? A liberal activist judge? See my point? |
