Well, you and almost everyone by now believes that, but it isn't true.
Please cite the Constitutional text that you believe confers a right of protest in the way these idiots are claiming it.
Among all their other misfeasances, the legal mainstream understanding of exactly what the First Amendment protects has gone seriously off the rails.
The right to speak and the right of the people peaceably to assemble to petition for redress are not the same right. No one has a right to do that which is wrong. If mocking the family of a dead child at the child's funeral is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. To punish Phelps (who should have been horsewhipped long ago), the court would have to discriminate between assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances and this disorderly (because provocative) mob.
But wait--there's more! In order to protect Phelps's "right," it is required by eight of nine justices that the mourners suppress their natural, healthy reaction to this perverse assembly. If they did not suppress their natural, normal, manly feelings then Phelps would have suffered the consequences of his misbehavior long ago.
As with many other novel "rights," such as the "right" of women to dress provocatively without eliciting male interest, the government is behaving in a totalitarian manner by requiring humans to behave in a non-human, even anti-human, way.
“in the way these idiots are claiming it.”
So, the only way to protest is YOUR way....sounds like a big government response to me
“Among all their other misfeasances, the legal mainstream understanding of exactly what the First Amendment protects has gone seriously off the rails. “
You are gonna have to justify to me what exactly in the first amendment you are speaking of. Am I supposed to just adhear to whatever viewpoint you happen to have at any particular moment in time, or listen to the supreme court and what I read in the document that I have displayed in my garage for all to see?
“But wait—there’s more! In order to protect Phelps’s “right,” it is required by eight of nine justices that the mourners suppress their natural, healthy reaction to this perverse assembly.”
You mean resist your natural urge to do harm or kill another human being? I overcame that urge decades ago. The law allows for different viewpoints to be expressed, no matter how offensive they may be to you. The law does not allow for assault or murder. You are just a little off topic here
“As with many other novel “rights,””
Funny, I do not consider any of the Rights under the constitution as “Novel”....perhaps you would feel more comfortable in another country...try cuba or china, they would not tolerate the type of Freedom you are expressly speaking of prohibiting..