Modification of the 1st Amendment

Here goes- When I was required to view this BBC news report on the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS, I was disgusted by the extremist actions against homosexuals and those who fought for our country and continue to fight. Members of the congregation constantly picket funerals of the fallen heroes holding signs such as "Pray for more dead soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11". As members of the military processed out, the picketers yelled demeaning things to them. This is only one example of how Freedom of Speech and the right to protest is abused, and it is my personal opinion that there should be certain laws passed that restrict people not from expressing their beliefs, but from projecting their views on others using almost inhumane approaches. Like anything else, there are boundaries and limitations that one would expect to go unsaid and never overstepped- however, often times people tend to challenge these invisible lines in order to get their points across. Although we reserve the right to assemble and petition the government, I still believe that this can all be done without targeting people and displaying hateful messages. Petitioning has become a popular way to show disapproval and disagreement with someone or something, and, if we can't do so rationally, then how is it fair to expect the government to give us what we petition for? That being said, I believe that by setting restrictions, the right will still remain- however, people will be directed by the new limits to act out in a rational way. I cannot stand there and watch them picket a fallen soldiers funeral with signs such as "Thank God for IED's" (improvised explosive device's)- they may reserve the right to believe, preach and protest the government- but they should NOT reserve the right to attack a certain person who has been associated with helping the country and government. Although this is a specific example, I do believe there should generally be a limit set as to regulate this issue. I feel as though if it is not addressed in the near future, it will only get worse and become more difficult to control. That being said, how can one limit the first amendment without taking away a person's rights? For one, the law does state that there are limitations, however, they are rarely implemented in situations involving ones freedoms. This would include, slander, libel and obscenities. Through the example of the Westboro Baptist Church, it is clear that although these limitations have been "set" they have yet to be put into action. In one instance, the leader of this church recorded a video where he called upon a man he knew and condemned him to hell, saying "at 88 graham will soon die and split hell wide open. And Westboro Baptist Church will picket your funeral." - and then posted this on the internet. If there are laws against nudity on websites and certain restrictions set on that, then there should also be laws against condemning others and professing the belief that they do not deserve to live. If the world has come to arguments that consist of hatred and ignorance, then how can anything be achieved? I do think that people achieve more when they are rational and understanding. Therefore, the first amendment should be restricted not to prevent people from expression- but to prevent them from the when, the where and the how. By doing this, appropriate actions will be taken to help better society and the country as a whole. http://plato.stanford.edu... By gathering some information from the source above, it is clear that freedom of speech is very valuable, yet, like anything else, there needs to be rules set.