I get what you are saying about merely “expressing an opinion” no matter how moronic the opinion. But then I would ask you how you might feel about NAMBLA?
So what if a leader of the NAMBLA organization expresses merely his own “opinion” that there is nothing wrong with adult men having sex with young boys? Even if that NAMBLA member has himself never admitted to or has ever been convicted of doing so himself, but actively advocates that others do so and also gives them explicit instructions on how and when and under what circumstances others can and should seduce young boys and rape them? Sure the other NAMBLA members are supposedly capable of making their own decisions but are you saying the person advocating such criminal behavior is in no way culpable?
Is that constitutionally protected Free Speech or is that actively advocating and abetting criminal behavior?
I agree it’s a very fine line and one that should be considered very carefully and constitutionally and being somewhat Libertarian, I usually side with the civil liberties and free speech side of these sorts of issues.
But he wasn’t merely expressing his own opinion on child discipline, he was “instructing (his) church members and his own adult children to beat crying infants and toddlers with wooden spoons and dowels on their bare bottoms”.
Do I think that occasionally “smacking” an unruly toddler on the hand or across the butt equals child abuse? No. Do I and most rational and right thinking people think that “beating” a two month old infant or toddler with a wooden dowel or spoon or any other object for simply crying is child abuse? Yes. Was he instructing and advocating members of his family and his church to engage in child abuse? If he was truly advocating and instructing others to “beat” and not merely spank toddlers and two month old infants, it sure would seem so.
“Is that constitutionally protected Free Speech”
Yes. Suggest you research the recent SCOTUS Westboro Baptist Church case and pay particular attention to this quote:
Chief Justice John Roberts:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”
Likely this gets overturned on appeal.
How I feel has nothing to do with it. This is not a matter of feeling, but a matter of constitutionally protected rights. Talk is one thing actions something else again. You and I are offended by NAMBLA. The majority of New Yorkers are offended by the Right to bear arms. Should That right be removed because a large segment of the population doesn't like it? Also note that the very first amendment in the BOR is the one dealing with free speech.
You can't make an exception to free speech because some idiot says something outrageous after all everything is outrageous to someone.