Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Wait... Do you remember this thread? How's this situation any different than that one? If the KKK has the right to march through a predominantly Jewish/minority town without being sued for 'emotional distress', then why shouldn't Phelps-- Or anyone for that matter-- Be allotted the same right? It seems to me that most people's inherent dislike for Fred Phelps makes them unable to view this objectively. Oh well... |
Let's pretend for a moment that the thread you recalled was anything like what we're discussing now...
Marching is not a protest, first of all. It's convening in public as a group. It's displaying the right to assemble and to publicly express beliefs. That is not a protest of any kind, whatsoever.
So, let's also pretend that what the Nazis were doing was a protest.
Their presence was pre-arranged and a permit to march was obtained, which means someone approved their right to march and display their beliefs based on their intentions.
The only way this would have compared to the Nazi march is if Nazis showed up randomly to synagogues yelling racial slurs at people peaceably gathering to observe their religion with the agenda to harass and cause disturbance. As much as I may hate the Nazis, what they were doing was in no way illegal. Simply speaking words that offend people does not constitute harassing them.
You're also comparing a single event of marching against a constant, habitual act of targeted intent. They make it personal, and they do it every chance they get. The nazis, as I stated, are not running around yelling slurs in front of synagogues every time they hold services. If they were, they'd be similarly accountable for their targeted harassment.