Posted on 10/06/2006 8:43:09 AM PDT by Alouette
In this instance, these lawyers and judges "invented" a way to set strict limits on how the government can regulate your speech.
I can't speak for you, but that's a pretty good thing in my book.
That's a double-edged sword: if the gov't cannot prohibit you from making vile, hateful, objectionable speech like the members of the "church" in question do, then it frees them to make this kind of statement and victimize innocents...and further restricts the legal rights of those innocents to any kind of recourse.
I think you need to mention that the "speech" in question was the disruption of a funeral. It was a ridiculous decision.
Freedom of speech is *always* a "double-edged sword".
There is absolutely no need to protect popular, inoffensive speech. The First Amendment is meant to protect unpopular speech that the majority (or a powerful minority) does not wish to hear. That includes Phelps' vile, hateful, and objectionable speech.
Do you want the government to have more power to regulate unpopular speech?
No, sir, that is not what the statute in question regulates. If protesters disrupt a funeral, there are existing laws to punish them. This statute seeks to limit speech that the funeral attendees and the general public consider (rightfully) offensive. Because the statute was too broad in its construction, the judge (correctly, in my opinion) held it to be unconstitutional.
When regulations like this are allowed, what do you think protects you if you wish to express a very unpopular opinion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.