I think that I should clarify my position.

I do not think that it s right that the judges decide what is a right or not.

It was not always like this. Back when states had rights (pre-civil war), the state decided what was a right. The 14th amendment killed that, and the Griseild case in 1967 was the nail in the coffin in reference to the 9th amendment.

I do It agree with it at all. I am just stating the truth of how things are now.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I think that I should clarify my position.

I do not think that it s right that the judges decide what is a right or not.

It was not always like this. Back when states had rights (pre-civil war), the state decided what was a right. The 14th amendment killed that, and the Griseild case in 1967 was the nail in the coffin in reference to the 9th amendment.

I do It agree with it at all. I am just stating the truth of how things are now.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

I can't find a "Griseild" case from 1967. I might guess that you meant to type Griswold, as in Griswold v Connecticutt, but that was a 1965 case that involved the rights of a married couple to use a condom. So, what are you talking about. What court was the Griseild case in? I'd like to see what it says.

Freedom of speech exists so long as it does not cause a danger to other people. This is why you get your butt thrown in jail if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It is only a matter of time until someone gets hurt at one of their "shows" (and that's all it is, they are professional trolls). They protested a high school or two this year, and I swear if it were my kid having to hear that crap, I'd sue them for child abuse. Don't think I'd win, but I'd prove a point.

The OP has good and valid points, because the laws like the one Arizona just passed have held up in court, despite the Phelps' best efforts to strike them down. Ignoring them won't make them go away.

I suggested filling up every single parking space in any town they're protesting in to keep those leeches out of the area.

My husbands cousin was killed in Iraq in 2007, and yes WBC was there to protest. But I was focused on the family and what the pastor was saying, and the ceremony, so I really didnt notice WBC until we left the cemetary. However it was still very disrespectful, and I cant understand what they think they are accomplishing, except to make most dispise them.

I dont want to make laws that say some people can state opinions and others cant, that would be a dark road to go down. Each individual should be respectful of such painful events as a funeral. Thats why we stop our cars and allow a funeral procession to pass by. Out of respect for the people involved, even though we may not know them. I think this is a matter of treating another as you would want to be treated. I just feel sorry for the WBC members. What miserable people they must be.

Being complete asshats at a funeral does not in any way step on the rights of anyone else. They do not block funerals from being held, they do not stop or otherwise obstruct in any way. All they do is be as annoying and as bigoted as humanly possible.

These people are the internet trolls of the real world, and as such, they need to be ignored completely. They live off of this confrontation, they thrive off of the scandal of their message, this is why they do it.

If no one payed them any attention, they would end up going away.