Replies

"The First Amendment only applies to censorship BY THE GOVERNMENT. You have no ‘Free Speech’ rights when your speech is against another citizen."

Wrong. You can speak against another citizen all you want, provided it's not slanderous or libelous. Happens all the time right here on FR.

"You are using a hypothetical that does not exist."

ROTFLMAO...dude...that's the definition of "hypothetical." Did you look that up or figure it out all by yourself?

As I understand it, the Phelps folks are arguing that their protests at soldier funerals are precisely because they were employees/agents of the government (i.e. military); they are claiming the deaths are the results of the government's embrace of homosexuals. That's tantamount to my hypothetical protest/demonstration at a Horiuchi funeral...a private individual who is known for his role as a government employee. I think it would be tasteless, but alas, the First Amendment protects things we may find unsavory.

Again, not to defend Phelps & Co., but what lies have they told about the deceased? "God hates you"? Can you prove otherwise? To my knowledge, based on the photos of their freak show that I've seen, all of their statements/signs have been general enough to avoid any classification as slander/libel against any individual...if they crossed that line, I'm sure somebody would have pursued that line against them by now. Furthermore, to my knowledge, they've been pretty careful about not trespassing on private property, obstructing traffic, obtaining all the locally required permits, etc. You and I may not care one bit for their disgraceful behavior, but it seems to me they are well within their rights to demonstrate as they have.

'You can speak against another citizen all you want, provided it's not slanderous or libelous.'

Which is exactly what I said. But you chose to excerpt my comments by quoting only part of what my post was about to try to make your point.

"If, however, you are protesting a ‘private citizen’ that has no ties with the government and are deliberately ‘slandering’ them with lies, then no, you don’t have First Amendment protections and there are laws and courts that can and will be used to directly address those issues."

'but what lies have they told about the deceased?'

Reading is fundamental.

From the article:

"They followed their protest by publishing a poem on the Internet entitled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder," which stated that Matthew's parents "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil."

So you don't find this libelous or slanderous?

What proof do they have of these statements? Which are not only against Matthews parents, but Matthew himself.

None!

And once a soldier dies he not longer 'works for the government'. Any protests against him or his death are now against 'private' citizens.

Does Matthews parents work for the government too?

If they are protesting against government policies then why aren't they down at the nearest recruiting office or standing in front of the Whitehouse?

"You and I may not care one bit for their disgraceful behavior, but it seems to me they are well within their rights to demonstrate as they have."

Sorry, but this is not protected speech, no matter how you want to spin it.

It is libelous and slanderous against private citizens and can and is being dealt with in the courts, which is exactly what this case is about.

Just because they are issued permits, doesn't make them right or give them any protections under the Constitution.