[Polpolion]

It's a subject that requires some finesse, IMHO. I'd actually rather avoid laws preventing people from making themselves look like total derps, but laws preventing them from infringing upon other's liberties are important. Of course, I need to define where you cross the line from "being silly" to "disturbing others" which is naturally difficult to do. Another thing to consider is that laws aren't magical things that automatically smite offenders. If you pass a law banning all forms of hate speech at all levels of severity (constitution notwithstanding) it's perfectly possible that de facto I'd get exactly what I want: things that do disturb people are reported and handled by law enforcement and the courts, and people that are merely annoying but not quite so disruptive are just sort of ignored and laughed at. Would this happen? No clue. Difficult question. I'm sure there's some analogous precedent laws with the civil rights movement, but I'm too lazy to look it up for specifics.

[Dilmah G]

From memory, a bloke called Kateb outlines what's known when studying Liberalism as the 'Offence Principle', which covers a lot of what you've just said. You do tend to a point where it becomes a lot about weighing harm caused by limiting a freedom vs harm caused by the exercise of that freedom.

I would reply more in depth, but it's 2:40am here, and I've got the flu.

[jr2]

thanks a lot jr2 now I keep getting right wing fundamentalist Christian ads

It's a subject that requires some finesse, IMHO. I'd actually rather have laws preventing people from making themselves look like total derps, but laws preventing them from infringing upon other's liberties are important. Of course, I need to define where you cross the line from "being silly" to "disturbing others" which is naturally difficult to do. Another thing to consider is that laws aren't magical things that automatically smite offenders. If you pass a law banning all forms of hate speech at all levels of severity (constitution notwithstanding) it's perfectly possible that de facto I'd get exactly what I want: things that do disturb people are reported and handled by law enforcement and the courts, and people that are merely annoying but not quite so disruptive are just sort of ignored and laughed at. Would this happen? No clue. Difficult question. I'm sure there's some analogous precedent laws with the civil rights movement, but I'm too lazy to look it up for specifics.

On that topic...

The Google-ad omens do not smile upon your solution:

[Ghostavo]

I wish I had your ads...

[Flipside]

Anyway, it makes me sad when people say that the WBC' activities are not protests but advertising. It's the same bull**** many activists face -- "Who's paying you to do this?", "You're just doing this for YOURSELF!". Thus continues the torrent of slime that we all love to pour on people who stand by their convictions and do it in the public forum... You know, they're just communists, or angry at the world, or doing it for the money, or their actions somehow make people angry therefore we need to stop them. It gets really absurd whenever I see people try to explain the whole "they're doing it for the money" thing; they'll mention that WBC sues. Yeah, they sue people who try to infringe upon their right to protest. If people didn't try to suppress their activities, they wouldn't see a dime from the legal system. Anyway, this whole thing is a classic example of tyranny of the majority: The majority are patriots, WBC is not. WBC is oppressed.

"First they came..." is relevant here. Likewise is the quote "Freedom of speech is always the freedom of dissenters."

Difference is, activists actually want something, whether that is some percieved 'wrong' righted, or some percieved 'evil' controlled, the WBC have no real terms to their protests, that is why I call it advertising. They have no real goal to achieve other than to present their views, they don't call for the Death of all homosexuals because that would breach the equality laws, so all they really can do is advertise their own existence.

If they were representing another, larger organisation then there might be some weight to your argument, but they are the very group they are representing and don't actually represent for anything other the their own existence.

[Nuke]

frankly im surprised wbc hasn't been firebombed yet.

[Nemesis6]

frankly im surprised wbc hasn't been firebombed yet.

Their property is regularly vandalized and they've had arson attacks.

I still don't buy the advertising thing, because by any rational standard, they're Christians, propagating a Christian cause. America doesn't like them protesting outside soldiers' funerals, yet they're OK with protesters outside abortion clinics calling the women baby-killers and so fourth; THAT is freedom of speech, apparently. The whole thing just reeks of hypocrisy.

The WBC want quite a few things actually. For example, the reason they protest the funerals of dead soldiers is because their interpretation of Christianity leads them to believe that these people fight for a country they believe is cursed by god. In the same vein, one of their signs reads "stop worshiping the dead". This is a jab at patriotism, which they reject because of the aforementioned "doomed nation" stuff. As far as them representing only themselves, I disagree, but even if I granted that, that shouldn't matter. Also, they sort of, kind of do: Christianity, specifically TULIP baptists. The only thing that sets them apart from their religious brethren is their opposition to patriotism I mentioned.

The supreme court sides with them, too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.html

[666maslo666]

Cant they just kick out anyone who disrupts the ceremony from the funeral area? I dont think a law is needed for this, but this restriction may be still somehow within limit of acceptable. Hopefully it does not progress towards further restrictions, tough, I would hate to see the US go down the hate-speech BS route. Hate is a human right.

[Nuke]

frankly im surprised wbc hasn't been firebombed yet.

Their property is regularly vandalized and they've had arson attacks.

meh. sounds like a job for armed and radical pagans.

[Flipside]

Were they not exploiting the Constitution for the purpose of denying someone else's Rights, then in and of themselves, they'd just be the bunch of crazy nutcases they seem to be. There are clinical and ethical arguments with things like Abortion that are not purely religion-based, it's those arguments that are often the focus in campaigns because people are perfectly aware of the seperation of the church and state.

It's one thing to go protest at Gay rallies or pro-gay organizations, but anti-abortion campaigners have been jailed for harassing Doctors in their personal life etc. That's my problem with the WBC, a soldiers funeral is in no way relevant to what they believe is 'good for the US', but it does have a high likelihood of TV coverage, and that is why they are there.

[Aardwolf]

America doesn't like them protesting outside soldiers' funerals, yet they're OK with protesters outside abortion clinics calling the women baby-killers and so fourth; THAT is freedom of speech, apparently. The whole thing just reeks of hypocrisy.

"America" is a collection of many individuals. Do not assume everyone thinks as one.

Also, we do have laws about protesting outside abortion clinics.