Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Well I don't know that I've done what you are accusing me of doing.... I think you'd have a tough time showing actual measurable economic or physical harm endured by people at a funeral because some idiot is out protesting outside the cemetery. You could easilly show that they were offended. You could show that they were upset. But the law does not hold that offending or upsetting someone is a crime.
|
You are right. But I think that the legal landscape can change very quickly, and it can take as little as one gunshot to redetermine that Phelp's speech and religious practice incites unlawful behavior, which is the standard in the KKK case I referenced earlier. I believe that Phelps' behavior will likely incite violence by a sympathizer to grieving families. Abortion protesters eventually shot and killed several doctors providing abortions in the 90s.
The larger point is that I believe we need to stretch out minds to envision that even constitutional protections are able to be amended and abridged for the public good should circumstances arise. Virtually everyone agrees that Phelps' speech is disagreeable and protected, but there are legitimate, possible, and even probable reasons that his behavior may be limited in the future. Like I said, it may be just one gunshot away, and I can't think of another public figure who is less symapathetic than Fred Phelps. I don't believe that disagreeable speech ought to be repressed in and of itself, but I think reasonable people can see the likely violent, even deadly repercussions of a belligerent and opportunistic putz like Phelps.
I was an escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota in the early 90s, and the 15-foot restrictions placed on protesters that were otherwise blocking access to the clinic was welcome and appropriate to the situation.