Interfering and preventing someone from expressing their opinion through disruptive displays and actions.
Who decides someone did this.
And as Yod pointed out, why does their speech trump mine?
SCOTUS
They where there first, they came to bury someone, the WBC came to protest said burial. One follows the other. There is also limited number of places you can bury people, there are lots of places you can protest gays.
Seriously the hairspliting and Sophistry in this thread is extreme.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Depends on your purpose: To offer a counter argument or to simply drown out mine. Drowing out mine expression of free speech is not in itself free speech. Hecklers veto and all that.
Even a geniune display of free speech could be regulated in order to avoid a public disturbance. In your case if you got there second, the police can tell you to move somwhere else(and will if it gets loud). If I had a permit for that location, then the goverment would not give you a permit for the same place.
Free speech is universal, but it still uses common sense regulations in order to function.
You are arguing for rules that are already in place. This has nothing to do with outdoing someone else's free speech anyway.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Interfering and preventing someone from expressing their opinion through disruptive displays and actions.
Who decides someone did this.
And as Yod pointed out, why does their speech trump mine?
SCOTUS
They where there first, they came to bury someone, the WBC came to protest said burial. One follows the other. There is also limited number of places you can bury people, there are lots of places you can protest gays.
Seriously the hairspliting and Sophistry in this thread is extreme.
So am I not allowed to go protest outside of Boy Scouts events because of their homophobic policies?
Am I not allowed to go protest U.S. military events for the same thing?
Seriously though I think you might be mixing up what 'protest' means.
Interfering and preventing someone from expressing their opinion through disruptive displays and actions.
Who decides someone did this.
And as Yod pointed out, why does their speech trump mine?
SCOTUS
They where there first, they came to bury someone, the WBC came to protest said burial. One follows the other. There is also limited number of places you can bury people, there are lots of places you can protest gays.
Seriously the hairspliting and Sophistry in this thread is extreme.
BUT THEN YOU MUST AGREE THAT GAY PRIDE PARADES IS WRONG!
BUT THEN YOU MUST AGREE THAT GAY PRIDE PARADES IS WRONG!
AND FLAG BURNINGS!
WHY DO YOU HATE FREE SPEECH?
It would be nice if you would actually explain what prevents people from applying the same logic to those things. Why can't people ban gay pride parades and flag burning solely for finding them offensive?
It's all well and good to say that reasonable limits are required on speech, but creating perfect limits has always eluded the SCOTUS, so they've decided that all free speech is better then faulty rules on free speech.
Now if only they'd apply that fine legal judgment to the death penalty. Ho hum.
BUT THEN YOU MUST AGREE THAT GAY PRIDE PARADES IS WRONG!
AND FLAG BURNINGS!
WHY DO YOU HATE FREE SPEECH?
It would be nice if you would actually explain what prevents people from applying the same logic to those things. Why can't people ban gay pride parades and flag burning solely for finding them offensive?
Because the venue is whats important for there protest, not there message. that is something that differentiates it from almost any other protest imaginable.
BUT THEN YOU MUST AGREE THAT GAY PRIDE PARADES IS WRONG!
AND FLAG BURNINGS!
WHY DO YOU HATE FREE SPEECH?
It would be nice if you would actually explain what prevents people from applying the same logic to those things. Why can't people ban gay pride parades and flag burning solely for finding them offensive?
Because the venue is whats important for there protest, not there message. that is something that differentiates it from almost any other protest imaginable.
The venue is called the "Public"
you might recognize the public from such things as "the sidewalk", or "The street"
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Interfering and preventing someone from expressing their opinion through disruptive displays and actions.
Who decides someone did this.
And as Yod pointed out, why does their speech trump mine?
SCOTUS
They where there first, they came to bury someone, the WBC came to protest said burial. One follows the other. There is also limited number of places you can bury people, there are lots of places you can protest gays.
Seriously the hairspliting and Sophistry in this thread is extreme.
So am I not allowed to go protest outside of Boy Scouts events because of their homophobic policies?
Am I not allowed to go protest U.S. military events for the same thing?
Seriously though I think you might be mixing up what 'protest' means.
Seriously there is a difference between protesting and heckling. Offering a counter-argument to someone is protesting. Attempting to prevent others from excercising their free speech is heckling, heckling is not free speech. All heckling is protest, but and this is important not all protests are heckling. Its up to the SCOTUS to decide which is which. Which they are specificaly empowered to do.
Silly gooses, nobody is denying that WBC has free speech rights, what this debate is about is if they instead trying to prevent others from using their free speech rights by interfering with funerals. The Decider? SCOTUS.
Like I said Hairspliting and Sophistry galore.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Because the venue is whats important for there protest, not there message. that is something that differentiates it from almost any other protest imaginable.
The venue is the public.
Again, why can't those things be removed from any public venue that people find offensive?
BUT THEN YOU MUST AGREE THAT GAY PRIDE PARADES IS WRONG!
AND FLAG BURNINGS!
WHY DO YOU HATE FREE SPEECH?
It would be nice if you would actually explain what prevents people from applying the same logic to those things. Why can't people ban gay pride parades and flag burning solely for finding them offensive?
Because the venue is whats important for there protest, not there message. that is something that differentiates it from almost any other protest imaginable.
The venue is called the "Public"
you might recognize the public from such things as "the sidewalk", or "The street"
As much as I enjoy the thought of shoving a large rock into the mouth of each of those backwards.. uh.. silly geese, I will always believe that there should never be a restriction on free speech except one designed to protect people from actual harm. Hurt feelings do not count.
What makes the funeral special enough to abolish free speech on the public property outside it but the main street of a patriotic town not special enough to abolish war protesters?
Silly gooses, nobody is denying that WBC has free speech rights, what this debate is about is if they instead trying to prevent others from using their free speech rights by interfering with funerals. The
They are not interfering with the funeral. They do not stop it from happening and the funeral, as it passes through public, may continue on it's way.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
"BUT IT'S OUTSIDE A FUNERAL" is not a rational excuse to curb free speech.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
Okay. I'm down from my rage high.
When I made the thread, I was mostly seeking fellow-ragers that these types of protests, no matter how poor in taste they are, are fully 100% legal and within their rights to take place. I know the reality is that freedom of speech has place here. I just really fucking wish it wasn't for these people but my wishing on it isn't enough merit.
I don't think "Outside a funeral" is a legally recognized location. I don't see what bearing that has on this. The are only two locations of importance in this discussion. Public and Private.
These people are having a protest in public. This is protected by free speech.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
When I made the thread, I was mostly seeking fellow-ragers that these types of protests, no matter how poor in taste they are, are fully 100% legal and within their rights to take place. I know the reality is that freedom of speech has place here. I just really fucking wish it wasn't for these people but my wishing on it isn't enough merit.
Well yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone would love for them to be on the receiving end of some horrifying fantasy or another. But that's not something that should enter in to the law making process.
Seriously there is a difference between protesting and heckling. Offering a counter-argument to someone is protesting. Attempting to prevent others from excercising their free speech is heckling, heckling is not free speech. All heckling is protest, but and this is important not all protests are heckling. Its up to the SCOTUS to decide which is which. Which they are specificaly empowered to do.
Silly gooses, nobody is denying that WBC has free speech rights, what this debate is about is if they instead trying to prevent others from using their free speech rights by interfering with funerals. The Decider? SCOTUS.
Like I said Hairspliting and Sophistry galore.
People having a funeral on private property are not engaging in free speech as far as I am aware.
Also I'm not sure how you got sidetracked onto what is and isn't heckling, as it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.
Upon reading the appellate decision, it seems that the first trial (which Snyder won) was decided by the jury on the basis that the signs and internet postings made by WBC members were directed specifically at Snyder and his son, with specific intent to cause emotional distress (through phrases like "God hates you" and the tale of how Matthew was raised to love Satan).
The appellate decision references precedents such as Hustler v Falwell and similar cases to draw a set of parameters about what is asserted fact (stuff you can sue for) and what is opinion (stuff protected by the first amendment). The judge references a radio host describing a contractor in Iraq as 'hired killers around the country' and how this is obviously hyperbolic rhetoric designed to spark a debate, and thus protected by the constitution.
The meaty part of the decision (wherein the judge applies various First Amendment tests to what the WBC was doing) basically says this: the signs were, to a reasonable person, not asserting facts about Snyder or his son specifically, and were not objectively verifiable, and thus were obviously rhetoric, and protected speech. He describes the epic on their website in much the same way:
In context, the Epic is a recap of the protest
and was distributed through the Church website, which
would not lead the reasonable reader to expect actual facts
about Snyder or his son to be asserted therein.
Furthermore, the judge allows for the fact that we might want to have protests held just a bit further away from things like funerals:
Nonetheless, the various states and localities, as well as
grieving families, may yet protect the sanctity of solemn occasions
such as funerals and memorials. Indeed, governmental
bodies are entitled to place reasonable and content-neutral
time, place, and manner restrictions on activities that are otherwise
constitutionally protected.
Honestly there's nobody that hates these guys more than me, but as the law stands now it seems pretty clear that what they're doing is constitutionally protected.
Lord Yod on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
My biggest issue with free speech is that people are fucking retarded and will get fooled by the Glenn Becks of the world with blatant lies.
There should be some sort of law banning blatant lying in a public forum. I don't mean stuff you disagree with (politics, religion, etc) but stuff that is completely and factually untrue. It's one thing to say 'Allah is the one true god' (cause, hell, who knows) and another to say something like "Obama totally said he was gonna rape your grandma and kill her."
My biggest issue with free speech is that people are fucking retarded and will get fooled by the Glenn Becks of the world with blatant lies.
There should be some sort of law banning blatant lying in a public forum. I don't mean stuff you disagree with (politics, religion, etc) but stuff that is completely and factually untrue. It's one thing to say 'Allah is the one true god' (cause, hell, who knows) and another to say something like "Obama totally said he was gonna rape your grandma and kill her."
It hurts society quite a bit, at that.
To some extent there is a law against that, it's just usually a lot more trouble than it's worth to try and fight it. It also strongly depends on the positions of the two parties.
My biggest issue with free speech is that people are fucking retarded and will get fooled by the Glenn Becks of the world with blatant lies.
There should be some sort of law banning blatant lying in a public forum. I don't mean stuff you disagree with (politics, religion, etc) but stuff that is completely and factually untrue. It's one thing to say 'Allah is the one true god' (cause, hell, who knows) and another to say something like "Obama totally said he was gonna rape your grandma and kill her."
Seriously there is a difference between protesting and heckling. Offering a counter-argument to someone is protesting. Attempting to prevent others from excercising their free speech is heckling, heckling is not free speech. All heckling is protest, but and this is important not all protests are heckling. Its up to the SCOTUS to decide which is which. Which they are specificaly empowered to do.
Silly gooses, nobody is denying that WBC has free speech rights, what this debate is about is if they instead trying to prevent others from using their free speech rights by interfering with funerals. The Decider? SCOTUS.
Like I said Hairspliting and Sophistry galore.
People having a funeral on private property are not engaging in free speech as far as I am aware.
Also I'm not sure how you got sidetracked onto what is and isn't heckling, as it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.
Well, first off disrupting a private function on private property is definitivly not free speech. So if thats what the WBC then they got to go. Just so we got that out of the way. Most cemetaries are however public property or public space in one way or other.
Then I got to ask you what is Funerals to you? I mean its obviously more then simple waste disposal, its often a religious ceremony or secular display of grief. How is that not a form of free speech? I am not allowed to show grief because an asshole wants to make a political point? Again what are funerals if not a display of free speech? There are after all two parties in this debate WBC and the attendees of the funerals. Focusing on the free speech of WBC without considering the Free speech of the attendees is just as wrong as blanketly banning WBC from making their point.
And Heckling is the core of any argument made here. These are not two separate events, one is happening in response to the other. If one event is made to purposefully prevent or disrupt the other, how is it free speech? How is my free speech protected when an asshole can interupt me without me having any recourse? Do you have the right to prevent other people from talking by screaming NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH loudly while they try to make their point?
Heckling is the core of this case. Is WBC heckling soldiers funerals. Do they have the right to do so? Do we have any recourse to stop them.
Edit. PS. the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Seriously there is a difference between protesting and heckling. Offering a counter-argument to someone is protesting. Attempting to prevent others from excercising their free speech is heckling, heckling is not free speech. All heckling is protest, but and this is important not all protests are heckling. Its up to the SCOTUS to decide which is which. Which they are specificaly empowered to do.
Silly gooses, nobody is denying that WBC has free speech rights, what this debate is about is if they instead trying to prevent others from using their free speech rights by interfering with funerals. The Decider? SCOTUS.
Like I said Hairspliting and Sophistry galore.
People having a funeral on private property are not engaging in free speech as far as I am aware.
Also I'm not sure how you got sidetracked onto what is and isn't heckling, as it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.
Well, first off disrupting a private function on private property is definitivly not free speech. So if thats what the WBC then they got to go. Just so we got that out of the way. Most cemetaries are however public property or public space in one way or other.
Then I got to ask you what is Funerals to you? I mean its obviously more then simple waste disposal, its often a religious ceremony or secular display of grief. How is that not a form of free speech? I am not allowed to show grief because an asshole wants to make a political point? Again what are funerals if not a display of free speech? There are after all two parties in this debate WBC and the attendees of the funerals. Focusing on the free speech of WBC without considering the Free speech of the attendees is just as wrong as blanketly banning WBC from making their point.
And Heckling is the core of any argument made here. These are not two separate events, one is happening in response to the other. If one event is made to purposefully prevent or disrupt the other, how is it free speech? How is my free speech protected when an asshole can interupt me without me having any recourse? Do you have the right to prevent other people from talking by screaming NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH loudly while they try to make their point?
Heckling is the core of this case. Is WBC heckling soldiers funerals. Do they have the right to do so? Do we have any recourse to stop them.
Edit. PS. the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Constitution does not protect free speech. The Constitution protects free speech from interference by the government. There is no weighing going on between the effects of the government interfering with speech by one party and that party's speech effects on another party's speech because on is forbidden by the Constitution and the other is not. It's the same reason that NBC is allowed to air a pro-life commercial and refuse one from a gay dating site.
Really, the only way to stop WBC is to drop a bomb on their complex. They're certainly not going to stop otherwise. But that, of course, is murder. Which is illegal. Whereas free speech isn't.
It sucks that people like this are allowed to say what they want, but the rule is freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody, since there are so many shades of gray concerning what constitutes "offensive". I've railed against WBC and people like them for years (partially because I'm a Christian and feel they represent horribly the things I believe and partially because they are a sociopathic group of people that take no one else's feelings into account), but they have the right to say what they want in public, just like anyone else.
And as much as I love what freedoms we do have in this country, it pisses me off that those people can spew their idiocy just about wherever they want.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I'm canadian but we essentially have the same rules as you guys (minus a few differences) and it amazes me that we live in a civilisation where it's okay to be a dick but it's not okay to get back at someone for being a dick.
My biggest issue with free speech is that people are fucking retarded and will get fooled by the Glenn Becks of the world with blatant lies.
There should be some sort of law banning blatant lying in a public forum. I don't mean stuff you disagree with (politics, religion, etc) but stuff that is completely and factually untrue. It's one thing to say 'Allah is the one true god' (cause, hell, who knows) and another to say something like "Obama totally said he was gonna rape your grandma and kill her."
It hurts society quite a bit, at that.
What you are proposing is terribly dangerous. It would have a huge chilling effect on free speech because it would give the government the power to go after political opponents.
The solution to "bad" speech isn't a government ban on such speech. The solution is countering it with "good" speech.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Wow, read the whole thread. At first I could see how these people should all just be sprayed with a firehouse or something, but they have the legal right to do what they are doing.
Take comfort in knowing they will all die after accomplishing nothing with their lives and will probably never see the falling apart of the country or a religious apocalypse. Oh, and not to throw this off topic but this is even better if you're an atheist, they will waste their lives for nothing lols epic fail.
Jean Claude Van Calm on
PSN: Grimmsy- Xbox Live: Grimmsy
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Wow, read the whole thread. At first I could see how these people should all just be sprayed with a firehouse or something, but they have the legal right to do what they are doing.
Take comfort in knowing they will all die after accomplishing nothing with their lives and will probably never see the falling apart of the country or a religious apocalypse.
My biggest issue with free speech is that people are fucking retarded and will get fooled by the Glenn Becks of the world with blatant lies.
There should be some sort of law banning blatant lying in a public forum. I don't mean stuff you disagree with (politics, religion, etc) but stuff that is completely and factually untrue. It's one thing to say 'Allah is the one true god' (cause, hell, who knows) and another to say something like "Obama totally said he was gonna rape your grandma and kill her."
It hurts society quite a bit, at that.
What you are proposing is terribly dangerous. It would have a huge chilling effect on free speech because it would give the government the power to go after political opponents.
The solution to "bad" speech isn't a government ban on such speech. The solution is countering it with "good" speech.
Bah, you know that good news doesn't outweigh bad news in the media.
Posts
SCOTUS
They where there first, they came to bury someone, the WBC came to protest said burial. One follows the other. There is also limited number of places you can bury people, there are lots of places you can protest gays.
Seriously the hairspliting and Sophistry in this thread is extreme.
You are arguing for rules that are already in place. This has nothing to do with outdoing someone else's free speech anyway.
but they're listening to every word I say
Gay parades are emotional abuse of people who believe homosexuality is a sin.
BOOM, gay parades are banned. Nice going Jokerman!
So am I not allowed to go protest outside of Boy Scouts events because of their homophobic policies?
Am I not allowed to go protest U.S. military events for the same thing?
Seriously though I think you might be mixing up what 'protest' means.
BUT THEN YOU MUST AGREE THAT GAY PRIDE PARADES IS WRONG!
AND FLAG BURNINGS!
WHY DO YOU HATE FREE SPEECH?
Do you have proof of any lasting emotional damage?
Seems to be the appellate decision for those interested.
LOOK AT ME I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO EVADE THE VERY SALIENT POINT OTHERS ARE MAKING AGAINST ME! HAHA!
It would be nice if you would actually explain what prevents people from applying the same logic to those things. Why can't people ban gay pride parades and flag burning solely for finding them offensive?
Now if only they'd apply that fine legal judgment to the death penalty. Ho hum.
Because the venue is whats important for there protest, not there message. that is something that differentiates it from almost any other protest imaginable.
The venue is called the "Public"
you might recognize the public from such things as "the sidewalk", or "The street"
but they're listening to every word I say
Seriously there is a difference between protesting and heckling. Offering a counter-argument to someone is protesting. Attempting to prevent others from excercising their free speech is heckling, heckling is not free speech. All heckling is protest, but and this is important not all protests are heckling. Its up to the SCOTUS to decide which is which. Which they are specificaly empowered to do.
Silly gooses, nobody is denying that WBC has free speech rights, what this debate is about is if they instead trying to prevent others from using their free speech rights by interfering with funerals. The Decider? SCOTUS.
Like I said Hairspliting and Sophistry galore.
but they're listening to every word I say
The venue is the public.
Again, why can't those things be removed from any public venue that people find offensive?
Or in this case, outside a funeral.
But hey, don't let me get in your way.
Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
What makes the funeral special enough to abolish free speech on the public property outside it but the main street of a patriotic town not special enough to abolish war protesters?
They are not interfering with the funeral. They do not stop it from happening and the funeral, as it passes through public, may continue on it's way.
but they're listening to every word I say
When I made the thread, I was mostly seeking fellow-ragers that these types of protests, no matter how poor in taste they are, are fully 100% legal and within their rights to take place. I know the reality is that freedom of speech has place here. I just really fucking wish it wasn't for these people but my wishing on it isn't enough merit.
I don't think "Outside a funeral" is a legally recognized location. I don't see what bearing that has on this. The are only two locations of importance in this discussion. Public and Private.
These people are having a protest in public. This is protected by free speech.
but they're listening to every word I say
Well yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone would love for them to be on the receiving end of some horrifying fantasy or another. But that's not something that should enter in to the law making process.
People having a funeral on private property are not engaging in free speech as far as I am aware.
Also I'm not sure how you got sidetracked onto what is and isn't heckling, as it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.
The appellate decision references precedents such as Hustler v Falwell and similar cases to draw a set of parameters about what is asserted fact (stuff you can sue for) and what is opinion (stuff protected by the first amendment). The judge references a radio host describing a contractor in Iraq as 'hired killers around the country' and how this is obviously hyperbolic rhetoric designed to spark a debate, and thus protected by the constitution.
The meaty part of the decision (wherein the judge applies various First Amendment tests to what the WBC was doing) basically says this: the signs were, to a reasonable person, not asserting facts about Snyder or his son specifically, and were not objectively verifiable, and thus were obviously rhetoric, and protected speech. He describes the epic on their website in much the same way:
Furthermore, the judge allows for the fact that we might want to have protests held just a bit further away from things like funerals:
Honestly there's nobody that hates these guys more than me, but as the law stands now it seems pretty clear that what they're doing is constitutionally protected.
There should be some sort of law banning blatant lying in a public forum. I don't mean stuff you disagree with (politics, religion, etc) but stuff that is completely and factually untrue. It's one thing to say 'Allah is the one true god' (cause, hell, who knows) and another to say something like "Obama totally said he was gonna rape your grandma and kill her."
It hurts society quite a bit, at that.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
To some extent there is a law against that, it's just usually a lot more trouble than it's worth to try and fight it. It also strongly depends on the positions of the two parties.
Then you'd outlaw satirical rags like The Onion.
Well, first off disrupting a private function on private property is definitivly not free speech. So if thats what the WBC then they got to go. Just so we got that out of the way. Most cemetaries are however public property or public space in one way or other.
Then I got to ask you what is Funerals to you? I mean its obviously more then simple waste disposal, its often a religious ceremony or secular display of grief. How is that not a form of free speech? I am not allowed to show grief because an asshole wants to make a political point? Again what are funerals if not a display of free speech? There are after all two parties in this debate WBC and the attendees of the funerals. Focusing on the free speech of WBC without considering the Free speech of the attendees is just as wrong as blanketly banning WBC from making their point.
And Heckling is the core of any argument made here. These are not two separate events, one is happening in response to the other. If one event is made to purposefully prevent or disrupt the other, how is it free speech? How is my free speech protected when an asshole can interupt me without me having any recourse? Do you have the right to prevent other people from talking by screaming NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH loudly while they try to make their point?
Heckling is the core of this case. Is WBC heckling soldiers funerals. Do they have the right to do so? Do we have any recourse to stop them.
Edit. PS. the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Constitution does not protect free speech. The Constitution protects free speech from interference by the government. There is no weighing going on between the effects of the government interfering with speech by one party and that party's speech effects on another party's speech because on is forbidden by the Constitution and the other is not. It's the same reason that NBC is allowed to air a pro-life commercial and refuse one from a gay dating site.
It sucks that people like this are allowed to say what they want, but the rule is freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody, since there are so many shades of gray concerning what constitutes "offensive". I've railed against WBC and people like them for years (partially because I'm a Christian and feel they represent horribly the things I believe and partially because they are a sociopathic group of people that take no one else's feelings into account), but they have the right to say what they want in public, just like anyone else.
And as much as I love what freedoms we do have in this country, it pisses me off that those people can spew their idiocy just about wherever they want.
Read The Love that Dares to Speak its Name out loud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Love_that_Dares_to_Speak_its_Name
I'm canadian but we essentially have the same rules as you guys (minus a few differences) and it amazes me that we live in a civilisation where it's okay to be a dick but it's not okay to get back at someone for being a dick.
The solution to "bad" speech isn't a government ban on such speech. The solution is countering it with "good" speech.
Rigorous Scholarship
Take comfort in knowing they will all die after accomplishing nothing with their lives and will probably never see the falling apart of the country or a religious apocalypse. Oh, and not to throw this off topic but this is even better if you're an atheist, they will waste their lives for nothing lols epic fail.
It's all I have. Bah, you know that good news doesn't outweigh bad news in the media.
Portable sound barriers.