[krell82]

I think most of you are lost to the professor's point....

What his political slant have to do with what he said is completely irrelevant. He obviously disagrees with what Phelps is doing, so don't go there.

His point was that the actual law proposed may be to vague to hold up if challenged. He doesn't disagree with the law, but that it should be more specific about what we are trying to prevent from happening, else people like Phelps could find a way around it or even get the ban revoked.

Not all liberals are bad...

-Krell82, the pro-gun, anti-immigration, and pro-small government liberal....

[StarCMC]

I think most of you are lost to the professor's point....

No, I got his point. But you did not get mine. If you had bothered to read my posts you'd see that the reason I think the good professor is wrong is that:

1) Missouri has a law governing electioneering -- it cannot be done within 25 feet of a polling place. Thus we have precedence for a spatial restriction.

2) The old "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" and expect to be covered by the 1st Ammendment. Yes, there is a right to free speech, but there are restrictions. Ever heard of libel? Slander?

And for the record, I do believe his liberal slant has much to do with whether we can count on him to see this law the way we (conservatives) do. Could I count on Katie Couric to give me an honest look at the news? I think not. Her slant skews what she chooses to tell me.

And for the record, I have a lot of friends who are libs, and I love them dearly. I would not, however, cast my vote for them to be anywhere in the vicinity of making public policy.

[Search4Truth]

"-Krell82, the pro-gun, anti-immigration, and pro-small government liberal...."

Welcome to FreeRepublic.

I'm a free market communist myself.