[HeartlandOfAmerica]

Flame away if you want, but I don't agree with this even a little bit.

All that you folks and the Supremes are doing is giving these thugish nuts the absolute right to do absolutely ANYTHING to call the attention of the sycophantic media to their cause.

What's next? They'll be able to picket the funerals of child victims of pedophile sexual abuse to get even more attention or even more heinous tactics?

You people and the Supremes are just blowing the lid off of this kind of thing. What about when they show up at rape trials and claim that women get raped because it's God's judgment and will because America supports gay's, like they protest at these military funerals?

That's only two quick examples off the top of my head. These WBB nuts are ALL trained lawyers. Like the Clintons, they didn't train in law, they trained in the WEAKNESSES in the law and if it can occur to me, it'll occur to them in time too.

Hey, public property, remember? I'll probably get taken down because, hey, it's free speech, right? Who cares about people's feelings or emotions? Long as they get to spew their hatred, you folks are ok with that, huh?

This is a MAJOR can of worms.

[jalisco555]

The only way to fight them is to ignore them. They are in this to provoke reactions which form the basis of lawsuits. So, sure, maybe rape trials are next. They want people to attack them, or municipalities to ban them, so they can sue. They’re only in it for the money. Once people just ignore them the money will dry up and they will go away. No need to endanger other people’s right to protest.

[TexasAg]

The true test of whether you believe in the 1st Amendment comes when you are subjected to speech you find highly offensive. If you're OK banning speech you find highly offensive, then you have to be OK banning pastors discussing the evils of homosexuality or other so-called "hate speech."

The 1st Amendment allows all kinds of offensive speech. Either deal with it, or just admit that you have no problem banning free speech as long as it's speech you don't like.

[drjimmy]

This is a MAJOR can of worms.

I believe all the things you cite as possible consequences of this decision are already being done anyway. No, the can of worms would be opened if the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment doesn't apply to speech you or I or 100 other people or 10 million other people don't like. Because that would mean the same thing could be done to the Second Amendment.

[concerned about politics]

Who cares about people's feelings or emotions? Long as they get to spew their hatred,

Who decides what is hate and what is not? The left believes the Holy Bible stands in the way of everything they believe in. Is the Bible a book of hate? Who decides?

[libertarian27]

All that you folks and the Supremes are doing is giving these thugish nuts the absolute right to do absolutely ANYTHING to call the attention of the sycophantic media to their cause.

One man's THUG is another man's HERO

If you can pick and choose who is a thug- you can also pick and choose who is a hero

I don't want a government du jour picking and choosing their heroes and thugs - do you?

[The KG9 Kid]

No flame for you from me, but SCOTUS ruled long ago in the Skokie case that even neo-Nazis had a right to parade in a town full of Holocaust survivors. The case was 'National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie', 1977.

This case was hardly any different. SCOTUS decided to hear this case because it was brought forth by the man who had a monetary damages judgement against Westboro Baptist Church. If it hadn't been for that, or the other way around, they probably wouldn't even have chosen to hear this case, citing Skokie.

[dmz]

Who cares about people’s feelings or emotions? Long as they get to spew their hatred, you folks are ok with that, huh?

<><><><><

Clearly, you’ve allowed your emotions to rule the day for you on this issue.

I don’t think anyone posting on this thread even remotely resembles the straw man you are tearing down with your “you folks”, “you people”, with a follow up “you folks”.

You would really work to limit some of everyone’s first amendment rights in order not to have your feelings hurt? Are there not other ways we can limit the exposure of these folks?