I support free speech without any exceptions, And to those who doesn't agree with me: Shut up!

>I agree with free speech but you should have to face the consequences of what you say. Like the shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
>
>So I wouldn't advocate government action to stop them but if the population en masse decided how to handle it by shunning them I'd be ok with that.
>
>I feel the same way about a lot of things.
>
>Like fox hunting. I didn't like it but I'd rather people decided not to do it than the government intervening to ban it.
>
>
>
>
>>The problem with that argument is that if you believe in free speech you shouldn't really be trying to find ways to prevent it :-}
>>
>>>Boycott would be a place to start.
>>>
>>>They must buy food,fuel etc.
>>>
>>>If you don't like what they do don't trade with them.
>>>
>>>I assume they must have some support how else could they finance themselves.
>>>
>>>>I agree with Tamar. Free speech is defending the indefensible and reprehensible, unfortunately in this case. I would love to see someone find a way to shut these folks down but this ain't it. It's good to see the SCOTUS stand on principles, though, although they must have been excusing themselves to puke a lot when writing their decision.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=C1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The courts don't have the common decency or enough balls to do what is right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I predict some well deserved fatalities on the Westboro side shortly.
>>>>>
>>>>>FWIW, while I detest Westboro's behavior, I think the court ruled correctly in this case. It's not free speech unless we protect the right to say things we hate.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar