Alright, let’s break this down:
(1) THE FIRST AMENDMENT PREVENTS GOVERNMENT LIMITATION OF A CITIZENS INALIENABLE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH – AND THEREFORE PREVENTS MOST LEGAL ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THOSE WHO USE SPEECH IN A HATEFUL AND HURTFUL MANNER.
someone who has no business being there other than to inflict emotional harm, disturb the peace, and take away from the freedoms of Americans to peaceful assembly
The Phelps crowd are exercising one of the most sacred rights U.S. citizens have. They are there because, at least they claim, they are essentially gods warriors trying to get the message out about sin. Although horrific, doing things like this may be what’s necessary to, from their perspective, get the message across. Essentially, it’s the spiritual equivalent of cutting a persons throat on the street to open their airway so they won’t die. Regardless of the message, the right they are exercising is profound, and that is the “business” they are therefore.
The problem here seems to be you’re approaching this from a positive (i.e., the government has to actively protect) as opposed to negative (i.e., the government has to refrain from limiting) rights perspective. The first amendment tells the government what they can’t do, because the right to free speech is considered universal and natural, and therefore no law need be written to mandate it’s protection. Therefore, the government is restrained from acting in certain ways by the first amendment. This legal restraint does not extend to private citizens, so Phelps _can’t_take away the funeral attendees rights – although he and his guys can ruin the exercise of them in a manner that seems like it’s the same.
In essence, it’s the same thing you see at most protests – you have one side with signs and the other side with signs. Sometime one side is super-hateful. However, the contrary protesters are not “taking away” the haters right to free speech. This is where the general misconception comes from.
(2) LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH FOR ONE IS LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH FOR ALL.
You just keep looking at this scum bag and not the dead soldier or his family’s rights, Why aren’t their rights as vehemetly protected by you and others.
As stated above, the family’s rights to free assembly are totally protected. At the trial of Matthew Shepard’s killers, his friends wanted peace while they saw justice exercised. However, this was made impossible by Phelps and his family/followers. Thus the Angel Action. They still got to see the trial and justice carried out in whatever form, but not in the peaceful manner they preferred.
And I hate to be blunt about this, but the dead have no rights, and at no point should anyone’s desire to be remembered in a certain way trump the rights of a living citizen.
By supporting the rights of Phelps, one IS supporting the rights for all. If we limit his rights (e.g., state that it’s “outrageous” and therefore should be more limited), how do we legally thereafter define “outrageous”? Should the paparazzi crowding around a celebrity constantly flashing the camera in their face be considered as behaving “outrageously”? Common decency dictates clearly yes, but what about legally? Should they thereafter be arrested and taken away? If this limitation occurred – very possibly they would. Then what about opinions that we just find distasteful? The implications are too dangerous to play with.
(3) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHT TO HAPPINESS.
_ The Constitution tells me that I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all of which have been violated by the actions of another scumbag, wrapped in religion, and clinging to the hope that you will see this as a 1st amendment case_
The constitution tells you no such thing – that’s a quote from the Declaration of Independence, which doesn’t have any legal effect in and of itself. Therefore, your right to happiness is again generally outlined by the Constitution – part of which is in your ability to exercise your right of speaking freely without fear of government action.
Your right to life and liberty have not at all been violated by this man, at least not through what he says. If you have a way how it has been, please enlighten me.
(4) SPEECH WHICH PRECEDES CRIMINAL ACTS WHICH (A) CLEARLY WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE SPEECH OR (B) INDICATED THE CLEAR INTENT TO COMMIT THE ACT IS NOT THE TYPE OF SPEECH CONSIDERED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND IS NOT THE KIND OF SPEECH USED BY PHELPS.
If this speeach is acceptable how is Charles Mansion in jail? He never killed anyone, just stood in the desert and talked.about it.
Charles Manson is in jail because he was part of a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Sharon Tate, her unborn infant, and others where such murder actually occurred. He was not arrested for talking about it – but planning it, and successfully.
This is not the expression of an idea, or an interpretation, etc. You aren’t free to lie without consequences, etc. – perjury, for instance, is punishable. You have to remember that anything said is not “speech” as contemplated in the first amendment. Speech only refers to the expression of an idea or a statement of belief, etc. That’s exactly what Phelps and his gang are doing…therefore, they are protected.
- – Now…I’m not defending this guys position, and that should be clear. But I find it, and this is all me being sensitive possibly, painful in a way that the legal battle seems to have exploded again now that they’re protesting soldier funerals. I had to watch far too many protests at gay and lesbian funerals where hate fell like rain, and the mainstream media wasn’t paying any attention then, and there wasn’t a Supreme Court case on it… (at least as far as I can remember). So, I think it’s an important point to show that it seems like a lot of people only want to limit free speech when it’s them getting hurt too, and not just us.