The Phelps decision disgust me but I believe it was the correct decision

[LynneSin]

The speech that the Phelps make is disgusting and not very popular but I believe the Supreme Court mad the right decision. There's a slipperly slope there when it comes to first amendment rights and if the court ruled against the Phelps who knows what would show up next in the Supreme Court. People might feel offended over signs held by anti-war protestors and come after us.

Unfortunately we can't stop Phelps but we can make sure his ilk are surrounded in such a way that they are not seen or heard at these protests.

[OHdem10]

1. Agreed. I may hate with every fiber of my body what you say but

I am willing to fight to the death protecting your
right to say it.

[steve2470]

2. I agree, even the Nazis and Phelps have to be protected nt

[Adsos Letter]

3. Yup.

[Courtesy Flush]

4. Besides, their craziness works against the RW.

I agree that unpopular speech needs protecting. Popular speech is rarely threatened, after all.

But there's the added benefit of the far right being exposed for the loonies they are. All the reason in the world couldn't demonstrate it better than they have.

[ewagner]

5. Yeah....same here

:puke:

[DinahMoeHum]

6. Agreed. Feelings do not trump the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Otherwise, we get to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

:evilfrown:

[LTR]

7. Sometimes we may disagree with the First Amendment, but it's there for a reason

Besides, it gives really good groups like the Patriot Guard Riders the right to annoy the piss out of Phelps flunkies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders
http://www.patriotguard.org/

[davsand]

8. Whatever speech offends me most probably needs protection.

Seriously. I always figured that if it was pissing me off it probably was the most in need of the protection of our Constitution. It is a stone bummer to have a conscience some days.



Laura

[Ratty]

9. What's the difference?

Don't, like, a million people sue every day for what they call emotional distress? Your OP mentioned people being offended but the actual suit was over the "emotional damage" inflicted on the soldier's loved ones at a funeral. I agree about offensive speech being protected but I think this case was far less cut and dried than that.

[Initech]

10. I'm pissed at the decision too but I can't fault them for voting with the constitution.

Of course on the flip side they didn't with Citizen's United so I guess it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Mz Pip]

11. I agree

Free speech does notjust mean agreeable or inoffensive speech. Appalling as the Westboro Baptist Church is they get to spout their hatred.

[Fuzz]

12. I'm disgusted that Alito wanted to curtail freedom of speech actually.

As sick as those bastards are from that 'church' and hope they never come within 100 miles of me, or anyone else for that matter, the decision was correct.