There is a difference between being an asshole and being the ungodly, pretentious fucktards that the WBC is.
An asshole is the guy in the BMW that cuts you off then gets mad when you try to pass him afterwards and flips you the bird. What the WBC does is morally wrong and just complete shit.
I see what the WBC does as harassment, not just exercising their right to free speech.
Why wouldn't it and why don't you?If what they're doing falls under harassment in the location they're doing it, they should be charged with it. Though I find it hard to believe it would. And don't really think it should.
I'm not disputing that certain laws exist, I'm saying in most cases they shouldn't.
Slander and libel are different situations.
You can slander someones name by the actions of "free speech", but the law prevent it (or rather punishes for it).
Well in saying most cases you are allowing instances for free speech to be taken away so I don't see why this can't be added to said list...
Slander and libel are very specific and don't really relate to free speech. Free speech is about being able to voice any opinion or interpretation, not about making false factual claims about people or businesses.
Can you reword that, please?
Well someones opinion could be in fact making false claims WBC does that kind of crap all the time
In saying "In most cases they shouldn't" you are leaving that open ended so my point was that if you can obviously find a scenario where free speech should be restricted you aren't being very consistent.
I guess by definition they are not "technically" slandering since it requires the individual/group to be specific, but the many things they say/promote if directed at actual individuals would be considered slander.
I agree about violence/threats for sure, but you (or maybe it was someone else) presented this as a slippery slope situation and the same could be qualified for violence/threats was my main point there.
Definitely, but that's the whole point, isn't it? That's why Fox News can get away with stating absolute nonsense. So long as you don't attribute it to specific people or organisations it's legal - precisely because it's freedom of speech. And I think that's acceptable enough, if irritating. There's no way to legislate it without it being a gross infringement of people's rights.
Nah wasn't me
Has he? I'm quite surprised he gets away with it in The Land Of Litigation.