I guess I just don't have the "Constitution is King" mentality ya'll seem to have. I'm pretty much fine with tearing it to shreds so long as its put to a vote to the people as a whole.
Absent "rule of law" what would you have rule?
Rule of the mob, apparently.
aka, Democracy
You know, that system of government where the "mob" defines the laws through a system of mutual agreement we call "voting"?
I don't care for this Republic crap. I'm sick and tired of choosing between a field of two silly geese that both promise to enact the laws we want while neither does anything but allow themselves to be purchased.
I guess I just don't have the "Constitution is King" mentality ya'll seem to have. I'm pretty much fine with tearing it to shreds so long as its put to a vote to the people as a whole.
Absent "rule of law" what would you have rule?
Rule of the mob, apparently.
aka, Democracy
You know, that system of government where the "mob" defines the laws through a system of mutual agreement we call "voting"?
I don't care for this Republic crap. I'm sick and tired of choosing between a field of two silly geese that both promise to enact the laws we want while neither does anything but allow themselves to be purchased.
So you are cool with prop 8 and all the other state gay marriage bans? After all those were all passed by voters directly.
I guess I just don't have the "Constitution is King" mentality ya'll seem to have. I'm pretty much fine with tearing it to shreds so long as its put to a vote to the people as a whole.
The constitution can be changed already without destroying it. All you need is a 3/4 vote to amend it.
2/3rds from each house or a 2/3rds of the states in a constitutional convention, actually.
3/4 of states have to ratify it.
Thus my point being "Maybe it is illegal now, but that doesn't mean it should stay that way."
I don't recall anyone saying the constitution should never be amended.
I recall them being opposed to people making laws that go against the constitution.
And what happens when freedom of speech ends up causing people's emotional distress to push to a point of action? Who is the wrong-doer here, the one provoked (something considered in law) or the one doing the provoking (the protesters)?
This is the exact same question that was asked when those Muslim extremists began making death threats towards the Dutch cartoonist who drew the (supposed) prophet Muhammad. One such extremist was recently arrested after breaking into the cartoonist's house and trying to murder him.
So who is in the wrong here... the guy who drew a cartoon, or the guy who attempted murder?
The answer, should it not be obvious enough, is the guy who attempted murder. There is always a chance that something will seriously offend somebody, but in the end, people are responsible for their own actions and their actions are what counts. You can't truly force someone into doing something just with speech.
Suppose some guy at that funeral flipped out and shot a protester dead. The protesters were being dicks, right? They pushed the guy over the edge, so why should he be held responsible for it? But compare what each of those people did-- one held up a sign and yelled verbal insults, while the other committed homicide. Which is worse? Did he have no other choice but to kill someone?
Thankfully that didn't actually happen, but if it had, the guy who fired the shot would have been justified under your logic, as would the Muslim extremist.
You know, that system of government where the "mob" defines the laws through a system of mutual agreement we call "voting"?
Except it was learned quite a while back that simply letting 50% of the people +1 do whatever they want is a pretty terrible idea.
Yep. You're right.
There's a freedom tradeoff there, however. You're sacrificing the freedom of those 50% + 1 to be governed how they wish in order to protect the freedoms of the minority.
That's how we got the colonies in the first place.
SparserLogic on
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
And what happens when freedom of speech ends up causing people's emotional distress to push to a point of action? Who is the wrong-doer here, the one provoked (something considered in law) or the one doing the provoking (the protesters)?
This is the exact same question that was asked when those Muslim extremists began making death threats towards the Dutch cartoonist who drew the (supposed) prophet Muhammad. One such extremist was recently arrested after breaking into the cartoonist's house and trying to murder him.
So who is in the wrong here... the guy who drew a cartoon, or the guy who attempted murder?
The answer, should it not be obvious enough, is the guy who attempted murder. There is always a chance that something will seriously offend somebody, but in the end, people are responsible for their own actions and their actions are what counts. You can't truly force someone into doing something just with speech.
Suppose some guy at that funeral flipped out and shot a protester dead. The protesters were being dicks, right? They pushed the guy over the edge, so why should he be held responsible for it? But compare what each of those people did-- one held up a sign and yelled verbal insults, while the other committed homicide. Which is worse? Did he have no other choice but to kill someone?
Thankfully that didn't actually happen, but if it had, the guy who fired the shot would have been justified under your logic, as would the Muslim extremist.
Pretty sure death threats are not covered by the first amendment. And Westboro Baptist doesn't issue death threats. They just tell everyone that once they die, they will go to hell. They're assholes, not criminals.
Pretty sure death threats are not covered by the first amendment. And Westboro Baptist doesn't issue death threats. They just tell everyone that once they die, they will go to hell. They're assholes, not criminals.
Right, but that wasn't my point. My point was that legitimate free speech, like cartoons or protests/rallies, do not cause or imply physical harm to anyone, and their emotion-stirring potential cannot be used to rationalize whatever violence that might ensue.
There's a freedom tradeoff there, however. You're sacrificing the freedom of those 50% + 1 to be governed how they wish in order to protect the freedoms of the minority.
That's how we got the colonies in the first place.
It's done that way because sometimes the majority is quite simply being a bunch of assholes.
You know, that system of government where the "mob" defines the laws through a system of mutual agreement we call "voting"?
Except it was learned quite a while back that simply letting 50% of the people +1 do whatever they want is a pretty terrible idea.
Yep. You're right.
There's a freedom tradeoff there, however. You're sacrificing the freedom of those 50% + 1 to be governed how they wish in order to protect the freedoms of the minority.
That's how we got the colonies in the first place.
What the hell does the bold part have to do with what you're saying?
Our system is set up the way it is because that's what we believe to be the most effective way of governing millions of people.
Lord Yod on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Pretty sure death threats are not covered by the first amendment. And Westboro Baptist doesn't issue death threats. They just tell everyone that once they die, they will go to hell. They're assholes, not criminals.
one could make the case reasonably that disrupting a funeral is violating the free expression of the funeralgoers.
this is to say, it's impossible to make a speech if a dude jumps in front of you and gibbers into a bullhorn.
i agree that Westboro should be allowed to give voice to their benighted views, but i don't agree that disrupting a funeral is within their free speech rights.
You know, that system of government where the "mob" defines the laws through a system of mutual agreement we call "voting"?
Except it was learned quite a while back that simply letting 50% of the people +1 do whatever they want is a pretty terrible idea.
Yep. You're right.
There's a freedom tradeoff there, however. You're sacrificing the freedom of those 50% + 1 to be governed how they wish in order to protect the freedoms of the minority.
That's how we got the colonies in the first place.
Yeah, we're restricting their freedom to do whatever the fuck they want to any group smaller than 50%+1. This is a good thing.
Pretty sure death threats are not covered by the first amendment. And Westboro Baptist doesn't issue death threats. They just tell everyone that once they die, they will go to hell. They're assholes, not criminals.
one could make the case reasonably that disrupting a funeral is violating the free expression of the funeral goers.
this is to say, it's impossible to make a speech if a dude jumps in front of you and gibbers into a bullhorn.
i agree that Westboro should be allowed to give voice to their benighted views, but i don't agree that disrupting a funeral is within their free speech rights.
I agree and would like to add to that
Funerals (generally) are not public events. They are private services being held by graveside in (delving a little farther into the subject) private property.
note: having looked into this a little when I got home, it seems to me like most graveyards are privately owned and operated aside from certain cemeteries like Arlington etc.
These people need to be sodomized by something large and pointy, but I'm not really wild about limiting protests to that extent, unless the protests are going to directly cause harm in some fashion.
words right out of my mouth
Westboro are the scum of the earth
in order to live in a free society, we still need to give the scum of the earth rights, so that we can also have them ourselves.
Evander on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Pretty sure death threats are not covered by the first amendment. And Westboro Baptist doesn't issue death threats. They just tell everyone that once they die, they will go to hell. They're assholes, not criminals.
one could make the case reasonably that disrupting a funeral is violating the free expression of the funeral goers.
this is to say, it's impossible to make a speech if a dude jumps in front of you and gibbers into a bullhorn.
i agree that Westboro should be allowed to give voice to their benighted views, but i don't agree that disrupting a funeral is within their free speech rights.
I agree and would like to add to that
Funerals (generally) are not public events. They are private services being held by graveside in (delving a little farther into the subject) private property.
note: having looked into this a little when I got home, it seems to me like most graveyards are privately owned and operated aside from certain cemeteries like Arlington etc.
The counter point to this is that the protests don't take place on the graveyard itself. Just close enough to be noticed.
What we need is people owning whatever private property the protests take place on dispersing the protests.
Edit - ... That's not my thread title!
Henroid on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Pretty sure death threats are not covered by the first amendment. And Westboro Baptist doesn't issue death threats. They just tell everyone that once they die, they will go to hell. They're assholes, not criminals.
one could make the case reasonably that disrupting a funeral is violating the free expression of the funeral goers.
this is to say, it's impossible to make a speech if a dude jumps in front of you and gibbers into a bullhorn.
i agree that Westboro should be allowed to give voice to their benighted views, but i don't agree that disrupting a funeral is within their free speech rights.
I agree and would like to add to that
Funerals (generally) are not public events. They are private services being held by graveside in (delving a little farther into the subject) private property.
note: having looked into this a little when I got home, it seems to me like most graveyards are privately owned and operated aside from certain cemeteries like Arlington etc.
The counter point to this is that the protests don't take place on the graveyard itself. Just close enough to be noticed.
What we need is people owning whatever private property the protests take place on dispersing the protests.
Edit - ... That's not my thread title!
i changed your thread title to reflect the discussion that is going on inside the thread. you can change it if you want, but it needs to be indicative of the content.
public space is not universally protected for all forms of speech. a person cannot blast noise from your sidewalk if it disrupts your sleep, for instance. or really if it reasonably disrupts you going about your business.
the right to interfere with the legitimate business of others is not really absolutely guaranteed under the first amendment.
Pretty sure death threats are not covered by the first amendment. And Westboro Baptist doesn't issue death threats. They just tell everyone that once they die, they will go to hell. They're assholes, not criminals.
one could make the case reasonably that disrupting a funeral is violating the free expression of the funeral goers.
this is to say, it's impossible to make a speech if a dude jumps in front of you and gibbers into a bullhorn.
i agree that Westboro should be allowed to give voice to their benighted views, but i don't agree that disrupting a funeral is within their free speech rights.
I agree and would like to add to that
Funerals (generally) are not public events. They are private services being held by graveside in (delving a little farther into the subject) private property.
note: having looked into this a little when I got home, it seems to me like most graveyards are privately owned and operated aside from certain cemeteries like Arlington etc.
The counter point to this is that the protests don't take place on the graveyard itself. Just close enough to be noticed.
What we need is people owning whatever private property the protests take place on dispersing the protests.
Edit - ... That's not my thread title!
yes, but wouldn't that be covered under the same laws that say you can't stand outside of some guys house or business calling them 'faggot' with a megaphone?
Instead of attacking these protesters with freedom of speech laws, why not go after them with harassment laws?
Cause they pretty much are harassing people going to these funerals.
Your right to freedom of speech doesn't include the right to harass people.
Al_wat on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
I agree with the above three posts. I just worry that some people are going to argue about the ambiguity of what "harassment" is and how it won't be applicable to these cases.
Pretty sure death threats are not covered by the first amendment. And Westboro Baptist doesn't issue death threats. They just tell everyone that once they die, they will go to hell. They're assholes, not criminals.
one could make the case reasonably that disrupting a funeral is violating the free expression of the funeralgoers.
this is to say, it's impossible to make a speech if a dude jumps in front of you and gibbers into a bullhorn.
i agree that Westboro should be allowed to give voice to their benighted views, but i don't agree that disrupting a funeral is within their free speech rights.
What's your definition of disrupting a funeral? Because it seems that they are protesting on public property nearby, with proper permits.
Pretty sure death threats are not covered by the first amendment. And Westboro Baptist doesn't issue death threats. They just tell everyone that once they die, they will go to hell. They're assholes, not criminals.
one could make the case reasonably that disrupting a funeral is violating the free expression of the funeralgoers.
this is to say, it's impossible to make a speech if a dude jumps in front of you and gibbers into a bullhorn.
i agree that Westboro should be allowed to give voice to their benighted views, but i don't agree that disrupting a funeral is within their free speech rights.
What's your definition of disrupting a funeral? Because it seems that they are protesting on public property nearby, with proper permits.
yelling that the deceased is going to hell and is a 'faggot' with a megaphone whilst holding signs that say the same seems pretty disruptive to me (and the funeral goers) (and most any sane individual).
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
Once again, for the cheap seats, they can't have been that disruptive to the actual funeral ceremony if the person trying to sue them didn't realize what had happened/who they were until he turned on the TV after the fact.
No one was stopped from attending or conducting the funeral. So it's pretty much a textbook case of utilization of the first amendment. They're just assholes is all. Ignore them and they shrink.
Once again, for the cheap seats, they can't have been that disruptive to the actual funeral ceremony if the person trying to sue them didn't realize what had happened/who they were until he turned on the TV after the fact.
No one was stopped from attending or conducting the funeral. So it's pretty much a textbook case of utilization of the first amendment. They're just assholes is all. Ignore them and they shrink.
ok, in this instance the guy didn't notice (because they were that far away). There have been several cases where they were close enough to be a disruption.
Once again, for the cheap seats, they can't have been that disruptive to the actual funeral ceremony if the person trying to sue them didn't realize what had happened/who they were until he turned on the TV after the fact.
No one was stopped from attending or conducting the funeral. So it's pretty much a textbook case of utilization of the first amendment. They're just assholes is all. Ignore them and they shrink.
ok, in this instance the guy didn't notice (because they were that far away). There have been several cases where they were close enough to be a disruption.
Went through a few youtube videos to see if there was any footage of them/reports of them near the actual funeral, and it seems like they end up having to stay pretty far away. People are only seeing them on the way into the cemetery. Maybe there are times when they haven't, I just haven't found any yet.
Afterthought edit: Many these people are a special kind of crazy, though. I always sort of forget, and then I see them again and it's so weird every time.
yeah, I was looking too so as not to look the fool, but I can't find anything.
But I remember that whole biker honor guard thing being set up specifically because at the time they were really getting in there with their protests.
I'll keep looking
Yeah, I saw one with them in it. Some lady was talking about how she was glad she didn't have to even see them because the honor guard dudes were tall I guess, and they were standing in a line in front of them (the protesters).
Would anyone here disagree that nonviolent protests, crazy or otherwise, should always be allowed?
I'm not saying that there should never be restrictions, such as proximity limits, etc; obviously nobody wants some guy standing at the door of their family member's funeral yelling "GOD HATES FAGS!" through a megaphone. But I can't think of any situations where an outright banning of protests would be necessary. It would not set a good precedent.
Why don't we have a bunch of people who get off on humiliation, dress up in big mascot/furry costumes, dance across the street from the protesters? I mean, mascot fun time? With MUSIC?! Woah. Sounds like an awesome time. And if the people who are in the costumes get off on being humiliated and made fun of, more the better. Its like fueling the fire for the guys .
Would anyone here disagree that nonviolent protests, crazy or otherwise, should always be allowed?
I would.
If a protest or demonstration is conducted to intimidate or incite violence against members of a (marginalized) group, it shouldn't be allowed. Indeed, society as a whole has a responsibility to stand against hate speech and send a clear message that it will not be tolerated.
These people need to be sodomized by something large and pointy, but I'm not really wild about limiting protests to that extent, unless the protests are going to directly cause harm in some fashion.
words right out of my mouth
Westboro are the scum of the earth
in order to live in a free society, we still need to give the scum of the earth rights, so that we can also have them ourselves.
Would anyone here disagree that nonviolent protests, crazy or otherwise, should always be allowed?
I would.
If a protest or demonstration is conducted to intimidate or incite violence against members of a (marginalized) group, it shouldn't be allowed. Indeed, society as a whole has a responsibility to stand against hate speech and send a clear message that it will not be tolerated.
If we are talking about a group of people making threats of physical violence, explicit or implied, then I agree with you. As someone noted earlier, death threats are not protected under freedom of speech.
But protests can be 'intimidating' and contain 'hate speech' without calling for violence, and I see no reason to enact laws against such vague terms. If the group is not calling for violence, then they can say whatever stupid things they want. They are only words, and nobody will listen to them if they are so ignorant anyways.
An example: say there was a Ku Klux Klan rally being held in your town. If they were saying things like "black people should be beaten and hanged," that would be a no-no. But if they wanted to spout on about the 'Aryan' race and how the races shouldn't mix, and how black people should go back to Africa, or other nonsense like that, why should they be stopped? It may be hateful and even intimidating to some people, but again, they are just words and dumb people are entitled to an opinion too.
What's the old saying?-- freedom of speech isn't there to protect the speech you like, it's there to protect the speech you don't like.
Would anyone here disagree that nonviolent protests, crazy or otherwise, should always be allowed?
Allowed as in not banned by the government, sure. Yet at the same time if all those students counter-protesters had decided to stomp them into the ground, I'm not shedding a tear or voting to convict. Why couldn't those crazies burning churches in TX have taken a drive north.
I don't believe all non-violent protests need to be protected, nor should they be. Inciting hatred isn't something I believe you need to allow. But then, I live in a country where it's illegal.
I don't believe all non-violent protests need to be protected, nor should they be. Inciting hatred isn't something I believe you need to allow. But then, I live in a country where it's illegal.
Posts
aka, Democracy
You know, that system of government where the "mob" defines the laws through a system of mutual agreement we call "voting"?
I don't care for this Republic crap. I'm sick and tired of choosing between a field of two silly geese that both promise to enact the laws we want while neither does anything but allow themselves to be purchased.
So you are cool with prop 8 and all the other state gay marriage bans? After all those were all passed by voters directly.
I don't recall anyone saying the constitution should never be amended.
I recall them being opposed to people making laws that go against the constitution.
Except it was learned quite a while back that simply letting 50% of the people +1 do whatever they want is a pretty terrible idea.
This is the exact same question that was asked when those Muslim extremists began making death threats towards the Dutch cartoonist who drew the (supposed) prophet Muhammad. One such extremist was recently arrested after breaking into the cartoonist's house and trying to murder him.
So who is in the wrong here... the guy who drew a cartoon, or the guy who attempted murder?
The answer, should it not be obvious enough, is the guy who attempted murder. There is always a chance that something will seriously offend somebody, but in the end, people are responsible for their own actions and their actions are what counts. You can't truly force someone into doing something just with speech.
Suppose some guy at that funeral flipped out and shot a protester dead. The protesters were being dicks, right? They pushed the guy over the edge, so why should he be held responsible for it? But compare what each of those people did-- one held up a sign and yelled verbal insults, while the other committed homicide. Which is worse? Did he have no other choice but to kill someone?
Thankfully that didn't actually happen, but if it had, the guy who fired the shot would have been justified under your logic, as would the Muslim extremist.
Yep. You're right.
There's a freedom tradeoff there, however. You're sacrificing the freedom of those 50% + 1 to be governed how they wish in order to protect the freedoms of the minority.
That's how we got the colonies in the first place.
Pretty sure death threats are not covered by the first amendment. And Westboro Baptist doesn't issue death threats. They just tell everyone that once they die, they will go to hell. They're assholes, not criminals.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Right, but that wasn't my point. My point was that legitimate free speech, like cartoons or protests/rallies, do not cause or imply physical harm to anyone, and their emotion-stirring potential cannot be used to rationalize whatever violence that might ensue.
It's done that way because sometimes the majority is quite simply being a bunch of assholes.
What the hell does the bold part have to do with what you're saying?
Our system is set up the way it is because that's what we believe to be the most effective way of governing millions of people.
one could make the case reasonably that disrupting a funeral is violating the free expression of the funeralgoers.
this is to say, it's impossible to make a speech if a dude jumps in front of you and gibbers into a bullhorn.
i agree that Westboro should be allowed to give voice to their benighted views, but i don't agree that disrupting a funeral is within their free speech rights.
I agree and would like to add to that
Funerals (generally) are not public events. They are private services being held by graveside in (delving a little farther into the subject) private property.
note: having looked into this a little when I got home, it seems to me like most graveyards are privately owned and operated aside from certain cemeteries like Arlington etc.
words right out of my mouth
Westboro are the scum of the earth
in order to live in a free society, we still need to give the scum of the earth rights, so that we can also have them ourselves.
The counter point to this is that the protests don't take place on the graveyard itself. Just close enough to be noticed.
What we need is people owning whatever private property the protests take place on dispersing the protests.
Edit - ... That's not my thread title!
i changed your thread title to reflect the discussion that is going on inside the thread. you can change it if you want, but it needs to be indicative of the content.
public space is not universally protected for all forms of speech. a person cannot blast noise from your sidewalk if it disrupts your sleep, for instance. or really if it reasonably disrupts you going about your business.
the right to interfere with the legitimate business of others is not really absolutely guaranteed under the first amendment.
yes, but wouldn't that be covered under the same laws that say you can't stand outside of some guys house or business calling them 'faggot' with a megaphone?
Cause they pretty much are harassing people going to these funerals.
Your right to freedom of speech doesn't include the right to harass people.
What's your definition of disrupting a funeral? Because it seems that they are protesting on public property nearby, with proper permits.
yelling that the deceased is going to hell and is a 'faggot' with a megaphone whilst holding signs that say the same seems pretty disruptive to me (and the funeral goers) (and most any sane individual).
No one was stopped from attending or conducting the funeral. So it's pretty much a textbook case of utilization of the first amendment. They're just assholes is all. Ignore them and they shrink.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
ok, in this instance the guy didn't notice (because they were that far away). There have been several cases where they were close enough to be a disruption.
Went through a few youtube videos to see if there was any footage of them/reports of them near the actual funeral, and it seems like they end up having to stay pretty far away. People are only seeing them on the way into the cemetery. Maybe there are times when they haven't, I just haven't found any yet.
Afterthought edit: Many these people are a special kind of crazy, though. I always sort of forget, and then I see them again and it's so weird every time.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
But I remember that whole biker honor guard thing being set up specifically because at the time they were really getting in there with their protests.
I'll keep looking
Yeah, I saw one with them in it. Some lady was talking about how she was glad she didn't have to even see them because the honor guard dudes were tall I guess, and they were standing in a line in front of them (the protesters).
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
I'm not saying that there should never be restrictions, such as proximity limits, etc; obviously nobody wants some guy standing at the door of their family member's funeral yelling "GOD HATES FAGS!" through a megaphone. But I can't think of any situations where an outright banning of protests would be necessary. It would not set a good precedent.
If they are far enough away, then I suppose it's within their right (also, I hope they die painfully).
If not then I apply my earlier arguments.
Why don't we have a bunch of people who get off on humiliation, dress up in big mascot/furry costumes, dance across the street from the protesters? I mean, mascot fun time? With MUSIC?! Woah. Sounds like an awesome time. And if the people who are in the costumes get off on being humiliated and made fun of, more the better. Its like fueling the fire for the guys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT7xQJrqUQ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ3ZSEWElY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmTuVvETNOM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yn-xgrV8OQ
A search of the thread says these weren't posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tiMBq0eelI
And then there's that. Where according to the description, 9000 students came out in an counter protest against like, 6 WBCs.
http://laughingsquid.com/san-franciscos-answer-to-westboro-baptist-church/
also this:
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/clowns-take-down-neo-nazi-hate-group/
What do they do for work? Where do they get the money to travel to all these places?
If a protest or demonstration is conducted to intimidate or incite violence against members of a (marginalized) group, it shouldn't be allowed. Indeed, society as a whole has a responsibility to stand against hate speech and send a clear message that it will not be tolerated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2FAAVPX-jg
If we are talking about a group of people making threats of physical violence, explicit or implied, then I agree with you. As someone noted earlier, death threats are not protected under freedom of speech.
But protests can be 'intimidating' and contain 'hate speech' without calling for violence, and I see no reason to enact laws against such vague terms. If the group is not calling for violence, then they can say whatever stupid things they want. They are only words, and nobody will listen to them if they are so ignorant anyways.
An example: say there was a Ku Klux Klan rally being held in your town. If they were saying things like "black people should be beaten and hanged," that would be a no-no. But if they wanted to spout on about the 'Aryan' race and how the races shouldn't mix, and how black people should go back to Africa, or other nonsense like that, why should they be stopped? It may be hateful and even intimidating to some people, but again, they are just words and dumb people are entitled to an opinion too.
What's the old saying?-- freedom of speech isn't there to protect the speech you like, it's there to protect the speech you don't like.
Allowed as in not banned by the government, sure. Yet at the same time if all those students counter-protesters had decided to stomp them into the ground, I'm not shedding a tear or voting to convict. Why couldn't those crazies burning churches in TX have taken a drive north.
The best response to speech is more speech.