Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Analog:

No offense, but your post has nothing to do with anything I've said thus far. You stated that there's a difference between protesting something and intentionally trying to cause 'emotional distress' by way of service. Well what would you call the KKK purposely marching through towns mainly populated by minorities? What, exactly, are they protesting? The only reason they do such things is because they want to garner attention. They know that marching through a town full of the very same people they deem 'inferior' will undoubtedly get people upset, yet I don't see you sitting here telling me that I should be allowed to sue them for $11M because they'd happen to cause me 'emtional distress' (Which, by the way, they wouldn't). That's simply innane. Under the First Ammendment I have the right to say whatever I want as long as it's not advocating murder or the violent overthrow of the US government. Conversely, you have the right to not listen. Wonderful, isn't it?

The fact that you're trying to rationalize one action against the other based on a pre-arranged permit is, in my opinion, quite astonishing. Are you telling me that, assuming the state explictly granted FP and his Church the right to protest the military funerals, it would somehow become more acceptable? That suddenly that 'harrassment' would be transformed into a legitimate platform for protests? I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't be. Really, this is nothing more than a case of punishing FP for being FP. The precedent this case sets is quite stupid. It gives yet another reason for people to sue just to sue. Simply because you disagree with what another person has to say doesn't entitle you to some sort of compensation.

Also, I'd encourage you to get out more if you don't believe the KKK makes a living of trying to incite the common populace into action.