delldimensions

Psycho_Teddy: My mother is a lawyer and I asked her last night about the case. She told me that "hate speech is not protected under the Constitution", like I said earlier. And she graduated with high honors from her law school. And there you have it, straight from the litigator's mouth.quote> I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I would trust a lawyer over myself and my law teacher, but I have to say that my high school law textbook says that hate speech is in a legal gray area. At least according to it (and it's eight years old now), hate speech is still protected under the First Amendment, though many groups are fighting to illegalize it.

Shout out to the BSP from Livonia! Great job on the new releases, but if I'm missing something, you guys don't seem to have any plans for the Guardian Building?

Most litigators would likely put this case in the realm of personal privacy if they were looking to convict, rather than free speech. It's very difficult to prove slander or to get around the First Amendment that way. It would be much easier to prove that the privacy rights of this family were violated by the protest than to argue that the WBC's conduct was slanderous. As to my personal opinion, Fred Phelps is a sick, deluded megalomaniac.