Not all speech is protected.
Source(s):
Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 42.01(a)(1), 49.02(a) (West Supp. 2007) concerning disorderly conduct the statute provides: “a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place”
Thanks. Also notable would be various laws and cases against slander and libel.
While I feel what they are doing is repugnant, disrespectful and wrong, their speech is protected just as yours and mine are. Sorry, I cannot support your position no matter what your argument is.
Explain why you believe repugnant speech is not protected under the US Constitution.
I'm very interested to know how you come to that conclusion.
"Repugnant" is a subjective term, and as such has been used to exploit the lack of respect for other people that runs rampant in our society. What this is coming to is the major problem among modern laws: lawmakers refuse to acknowledge that they have a moral responsibility to society in the laws that they make, and that this moral responsibility can be met without favoring a particular religion, thus preserving their precious "separation between Church and State (which, coincidentally, NOT a Constitutional quote...)."
The reason we protect freedom of speech is a self-defense mechanism to prevent tyranny and anarchy. When we start to limit speech and expression, we run the risk of allowing those powers of censorship to be used and abused against particular groups--or those who say things we do not like. The Supreme Court ruled that this self-defense mechanism was so important, it should even be allowed to disrupt our national security (
NY Times v. US).
Protesting at a funeral shows disrespect at a personal level -- something this group is NOT trying to do.
The Topeka, Kan., church has protested at military funerals nationwide because it believes U.S. troop deaths are punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality.
How ironic, and how disgusting; these people are picketing the funerals of the very people who fought and DIED to defend their "right" to picket. These heroes died for the U.S. If you want to get policy changed, picket Capitol Hill or the White House.
"Freedom" does not mean "doing what you want." The common use and understanding of the term "right" is drastically out of place. If everyone were to instead use "privilege" and "responsibility," we wouldn't have these problems.
Hate to break it to those defending it, but Communism is anti-religious by nature. (That's the reason it won't work.) Wasn't it Marx who called religion the opiate of the masses...?
The Catholic Church's role in Latin American uprisings was due in part to the then-common preachings of "Liberation Theology," which is social teaching that helps particular groups identify better with the Church and relate Her teachings to their lives more directly. The main problem was that this teaching advocated overthrow of oppressive organizations (sometimes violently) as a solution to their problems-- a decidedly non-Christian ideal, which is why Liberation Theology is no longer accepted or preached by the Church.
