Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore
All fine and dandy. But you can't go into my house and play the freedom of speech card. When you're inside my house(private sphere), I decide the rules. A funeral is like that. My word is law there. Don't like it? Bugger off then, you weren't invited anyhow.
However under free speech I am allowed to say within certain conditions about anything I wish to say within the public property that probably passes right next to your house.

As much as I loath the group - if their protest was not on private property - I am not sure what they are doing is warrant of a criminal charge, and since no criminal charge has been filed - as far as I know, I believe that the government is not addressing this loathsome examble of free speech by a hate group.

Now civil charges such as this are nowhere near my area of marginal understanding - the ruling does strike a note of un-easyness in myself as well, because it can open another round or irresponsible tort actions within the alreadly crowded judicial system of this nation, I don't believe that it in itself will bring about a lesser form of freedom of speech.

Now since the government did not bring about the civil case - it was private party suing private party, I am not sure that it violates the principle of free speech in that regards as well. Since with freedom comes responsiblity, one would have to demonstrate to me that one can not be held responsible for what they say.

While we have the ability to stand outside of your property and say what we will, we still have the responsiblity that comes with that freedom. I think that the civil case addresses that responsiblity, however I am still awaiting constitutional scholars take on this case as well.