>>>>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
>>
>>Sorry Tamar, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Their message is hate. If their message were aimed at Jews instead of Homosexuals, would it still be detestable but acceptable? It would not. Nor should it be. Nor would the courts allow it. Spreading hate is spreading hate, even if the target is homosexuals.
>
>Spreading hate is legal if all you do is talk. It may be hateful, but it's free speech that the government can't regulate. The people can react in ways that make it a mistake to say it, that is, by walking away, withhold their dollars, etc. We can show contempt in our treatment of these people (though I think for this particular group, the best way to respond is to ignore them; they thrive on attention).
>
>Tamar

Ok, I guess I assumed it was the same in the US as in Canada. Hate speech is illegal here if it is aimed at an identifiable group - unless the group is white males, of course ;)

Please, please, please, note the smilie.

I agree with Canadian policy. Hate mongering is dangerous behaviour and should be watched very closely and if it does appear to present a danger to some group, it should be silenced. It's far too easy to wring one's hands and wail after the damage is done. Far harder (politically, anyway) to suck it up and do something about it up front.