The Westboro Baptist Church should not have a right to free speech

My opponent brings up good points, However, these are points that can be dissected and easily challenged. CON has said that the ideas of Westboro Baptist Church are bigoted, stupid and hateful; therefore the ideas are considered failed. This reasoning is unsustainable: A failed idea is one that can be officially discredited ( such as the earth being flat, or Elvis is alive). There is no authority to officially discredit Westboro's hateful ideas. The hated speech is protected because it is "just speech". However, I would like to point out that according to the Supreme Court's decision regarding the freedom of speech, we realize that all speech is constitutionally protected, regardless how dangerous or hateful it may be, as long as it is truthful. Speech that is dangerous and hateful is not protected if it is false speech. Our military personnel should not be humiliated and disrespected at their funerals because they are directly responsible for the degradation of our country because gays are not forbidden to join. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). I would love for "this cult" to show by a preponderance of the evidence that this could remotely be true. Just because one's subjective ideas are believed by a fanatical view, does not make these ideas true. In fact, significant defections in this group lend more evidence to members not standing up for what they believe is a fact, yet agitating society to a point where there is no reason to their actions. This should be protected??? Where is the truth which would make this speech protected? there is no truth. They claim that the Bible supports their position to smear society with ramblings of hate. This is not true. A verse by verse analysis of both the old and new testament does not substantiate their claims. Where is the truth? Remember, there must be truth in their speech; this is a critical element to constitutionally exercise this freedom. Why is it not permissible to yell fire in a theater if there is no fire? Because in order for it to be permissible speech, it must be true, additionally, it invites the very real risk that others could be put in danger (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...). When my opponent says that the ideas of this "cult" are failed, CON helps to support my conclusion that this is not reasoned speech where truth is considered. It is speech that has the intent to disrupt a harmonious society. Should negative intent, in the absence of truth be protected? I say NO. It should not be tolerated or protected. My opponent states that society's distain for this type of speech is their way of handily dealing with them. I disagree. I say that no group who survives for twenty years is handily dealt with. My opponent states that because of the free market of ideas, Westboro is becoming less of a problem. I disagree. Westboro's influence is not simply limited to ideas; they intrude into the realm of physical action with the potential for violence. They intrude into the dignity of military heroes who fight for our country. This is not an indictment on a particular religious denomination. This is about an understanding and appreciation for constitutional and moral rights. Finally, my opponent discusses a slippery slope. The literal definition of the term slippery slope as used in this context is: a course of action that leads from one action or result to another unintended consequence (http://merriam-webster.com...). I believe that the confrontation against the forces of hate is a good thing. I believe that the end result does not support consequences. They promote truth and liberty and creates an effective means for positive change.