Raptor wrote:
What these WBC turds are doing is technically legal because it falls into the seams (for lack of a better term) of the legal system in the form of freedom of speech and expression.
It’s not legally a criminal act since it’s protected by the 1st Amendment.
In civil law a lawsuit it can very easily backfire as it did in this case with Albert Snyder.
Legal is a binary state--an act or omission is either legal or it's not. The gravity of the transgression goes to the question of quantum or sanction, but not to the determination of right.
"Technically legal," appears to be code for, "things that are legal that we don't like." I object strongly to characterizing freedom of speech as, "seams," into which conduct, "falls." It characterizes free speech as a defence behind which the objectionable hide, rather than a fundamental freedom of a democratic, liberal society.
Quote:
The only way left to strangle it is with little bit of vigilante justice.
Yes, this falls within in the darker regions of modern civilization but sometimes someone’s gotta to the publicly scorned but secretly applauded dirty work.
I agree that it's a $hit sandwich no matter how you slice it but in this case you can blame the WBC for making the sandwich.
You have arrived at your exhaustive conclusion after very little analysis. There are many options left before resorting to vigilateism. (I will not grace it with the epithet, "justice.")
When do people get to pick and choose which pieces of the Constitution they will support? If you don't like people's free speech, then seek to repeal the First Amendment. That's the choice of every citizen in a free and democratic society.
_________________
--James