Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf
Let's face it... while there's nothing inherently nice about democracy, the openness of western society demands that we allow people to be idiots, and to express idiotic opinions and viewpoints, even cruel and hurtful ones.
If we don't, then maybe we're shutting ourselves up, eventually.
|
It seems over protective. For example, such a holding would permit people who don't believe in Marriage to picket and basically ruin many weddings because they sincerely believe "Marriage is of the Past" or that America is "Too immoral to support Marriages."
For the sake of free speech, we will allow individuals to interject themselves in to private individuals' most intimate affairs?
Although I can see the other side's argument, and can see the need to protect free speech, I am personally uncomfortable with such a holding. I suppose I need to do some more distilling.
I think the actions of WBC were *PRIVATE* interspersed with *PUBLIC* issues. They deliberately targeted the father of a deceased marine with messages of "Thank god for IEDs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" (the private portion of their attack) with public issues such as "Gods Hates Fags" and "God Hates America." They should not achieve blanket protection simply because a portion of their message involves public concerns.