A bit surprised I haven't seen anything on this here, but for those who may not have heard, the Supreme Court has ruled that Fred Phelps and his Westboro "Baptist Church's" protests are allowed under the First Amendment:
My take: There's no doubt these people are idiots (and I'm being polite). Totally warped. No sense of decency at all.
But I also believe in TOTALLY free speech. That doesn't mean speech we agree with; it also means speech that we find disgusting. I think we can all agree that the Fred Phelps cult of hate perhaps shouldn't exist. But if we start banning them just because we find them and their views to be abhorrent, then we, as a nation, are no better than any other nation that suppresses ideas and thoughts.
Your thoughts and opinions, of course, are more than welcome.
So, with this new ruling, I can stand outside the White House gates with a sign that reads "Michelle Obama has a nasty pussy". How about I stand outside Justice Roberts house with a sign "Mrs. Roberts gives great head". Do you think I would be permitted to stand outside the capital with a sign "Obama is a nigger". If anyone tries to stop my displays, I can sue them and get rich. Only in America.
By the way, I had a queasy feeling just typing those nasty phrases but wanted to get my point across.
Our local newspaper had a piece on this nonsense and unfortunately it is precisely because it wasn't a personal attack on the family, but a generalized picketing of soliders and gays, that it was protected under the second amendment. If it had been aimed at the soldier and his family personally, Phelps would have lost the case. At least, that's the impression I'm under.
Westboro scheduled to show up today in O'Fallon, IL, at a military funeral. The usual fun and games, of course. Sooner or later you know they're going to overplay their hand, and I'm just glad I won't be the one who has to clean up the mess.
Do you mean the tire slashing,or something else?