Replies

'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.