NO #193.
I really didn’t see any questions in post #193. However, I will comment on your observation that I’m hypocritical for complaining about personal attacks while supporting Fred Phelps’ right to free speech.
You see, there are certain unwritten rules governing polite conversation. Remember when your parents taught you to say please and thank you? You aren’t required to be nice to other people, even ones you disagree with, but our society is a better place for everyone when we are polite to each other.
What about Fred Phelps and other people who don’t want to engage in civil discussions? Well, it’s one thing for me to want them to be polite. It’s something totally different for me to turn to government to limit their speech.
As we discussed in email, free speech only goes so far. For example, people shouldn’t be able to use slander or libel to ruin the reputations and/or harm others. People also shouldn’t be able to use words intentionally to create chaos, like shouting, “Fire!” in crowded theaters.
The legal problem, in my opinion, comes when we try to use government to limit speech that isn’t quite slanderous or libelous and isn’t “fighting words.” As I explained in email, I don’t have a problem with rules limiting where Fred Phelps can protest. Put a 1000 yard perimeter around the funerals. That’s great.
On the other hand, I don’t want to give the government too much power to regulate speech, especially speech that is merely offensive and doesn’t slander or libel. Why? Well, “offensive” is pretty subjective. What’s offensive to you isn’t necessarily offensive to me, and government might end up restricting speech we both want protected, like calling homosexuality a sin.