(04-02-2012, 06:07 PM)eppie Wrote: The only issue with this is of course where do you draw the line? Making such a thing into a kind of law very difficult.
This is the crux of the whole thing. I'd rather leave Phelps' free speech alone than trust the politicians to get their censorship right; i.e. special interests would get in the mix, and would end up with a far worse situation than just Phelps, imo. It's like banning books. Where do you stop, once you start? (I'm against banning books, too, btw, just to be clear.)
Yes, his hate is pretty over-the-top, but, as far as I know, having not seen it in person, it's been limited to words, and not physical action.
Now, someone being in my house and stealing things is a completely different area from free speech. That's trespassing, just for starters, and I have no way to know what his intentions are, and whether he has a weapon. I just know he's in my house, taking stuff that isn't his. He could be intending to stop there, but, he could have a gun and be intending to kill or hurt me or my family before he's done. I have no way to know.
--Mav