You have to have a more detalied set of facts to have any kind of meaningful discussion of the issue. Like it or not, SCOTUS Constitutional analysis has been highly fact intensive.
If I'm wrong about the facts, if they were far from the funeral, if they didn't crowd the funeral procession as it entered the cemetary, if they didn't yell insults at the family and the herse, then I'll change my position and agree with you on this. The facts do matter. The key for me is disruption of ceremonies, including entry to and exit from.
I find this to be bumper sticker logic, a superficial attempt to gain some kind of moral highground. It's a pretty slogan, it sounds patriotic. I picture a fife and drum corps behind you when you type it. It's just not persuasive. All or nothing arguments rarely are. I'm all for these people saying whatever they want, and I believe that they should be allowed to publicly assemble to preach their message. I just don't think that they should be able to hide behind the guise of the 1st Amendment to intentionally harrass private people.
You get to decide that some spiteful nutcase can decide that he wants to ruin some of my most precious and emotional private moments? No thanks.
Standing outside of a church and having a loud protest rally wouldn't disrupt a wedding?
Not a chance. Anne Coulter's a public figure. They're treated differently than private figures. Huslter v Falwell disallows on 1st amendment grounds IIED claims for public figures.
Comment