They could be worse. Protesting a soldiers funeral, in my opinion, should allow anyone to beat your ass.
English
-
Edited by M37h3w3: 2/15/2013 2:49:21 AMSo I deserved to get beat for protesting a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] soldier's funeral? Edit: What the -blam!-. I didn't type that bullshit. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url]. ... MOTHER -blam!-ER. *Flips table.*
-
Don't flip tables! Put it back!
-
*Flips the table back upright.* -blam!- you! I'll do what I want! *Flips table again.*
-
Now I have to nail the table to the floor. We need to have an intervention about your flipping of objects!
-
Are people forgetting that the first amendment protects their protests, no matter how offensive it may be? I don't agree with offensive things like that, but the day we allow people to be beat up by whatever we deem "offensive" is the day the first amendment goes out the window.
-
"Its in the Constitution" isn't a moral justification though.
-
This isn't a discussion on moral justification. It may seem immoral, but is a necessity for the law to be upheld.
-
Yes, but the law is being upheld, and not even considered for change, purely because it is in The Constitution. The freedom of speech, to an unlimited degree, is not necessarily a good thing - however restricting extremist views would require the removal of the First Amendment, which is, of course, not going to happen.
-
Freedom of speech is not unlimited, though I'd rather have offensive free speech than censored speech any day.
-
Freedom of speech isn't unlimited. Threatening people is illegal, for example. And government can place restrictions on the time and place of certain types of speech. Protesting on the highway during rush hour wouldn't be tolerated, for example.