>>>>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.
>
>It's not "acceptable" at all. But it is legal. That's the issue (the right to free speech), not whether the speech is hateful.

Of course it's acceptable. The court said so. If it weren't acceptable, it wouldn't be legal. When society sees something as unacceptable, it creates laws around it. Society sees purse snatching as unacceptable, so it makes it illegal. Society sees prostitution as unacceptable, so it makes it illegal. If this is legal, then society has said it is acceptable. Not all speech is free. There are lots of things one cannot say, and why? Society has deemed those things unacceptable, and hence, illegal.