Interesting Thought

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case in which a man whose son's funeral was picketed and intruded on by a "church" run by some scum named Phelps sued said scum.  Mr. Scum is saying that his rantings are protected 1st Amendment speech, and he shouldn't be sued for them.

Doing something like this at a Marine's funeral doesn't seem to be political speech to me.

There's been a bit of talk on the blogs that even though Phelps is roundly disliked and no one would cry if he were put into a portapotty and set ablaze, his speech should be protected.  Reminds me of the case back when I was a kid when neo-Nazi's wanted to demonstrate in a predominantly Jewish city.  The cry then was "If we restrict the speech of one, we restrict the speech of all".

I kind of agree.  I may hate what Phelps and his followers are spewing, and hope that the Almighty drops a frozen chunk of airliner sewage on his head, but I believe that the state should not do anything to restrict his spewing.

But what if the father of that slain serviceman could walk over to Phelps and his followers and demand satisfaction on the field of honor?  LawDog discusses the 18th century understanding of dueling and how it was a way for people other than the government to curb such antics.

Would Phelps and morons like him think twice about making a general nuisance of themselves if they knew that the people they were insulting could force them to put up or shut up with their own life?

If screaming "God Hates Fags!" at a family that is mourning the loss of their son could get you shot, stabbed, or beaten to death, would you stop bothering people at the funeral of their child?

Would the streets run red with the blood of the annoying?  Maybe.  But if being impolite or insulting becomes a potential death sentence, then maybe society would become more civil.  And families that are already mourning the violent death of their son or daughter could mourn in peace.