Pastor Fred Phelps should have the right to picket funerals.

For this round, I will refute my opponent's case. Contention 1A: First Amendment My opponent states that "picketing funerals is different from "freedom of speech", as it tends to have catastrophic repercussions." However, there are no 'catastrophic' repercussions, which I shall explain and refute. Contention 1B: Phelps presence violates "peaceful assembly" I will interpret my opponent's contention 1B as referring to violence that Fred Phelps causes. "Peaceful assembly" would mean that no one gets physically hurt. In this specific case, Phelps does not cause physical violence. While my opponent quotes that "Phelps knew that their presence could elicit violence" and security measures were made, but in the entire funeral picketing session, not a single person was physically harmed. Therefore, this contention is invalid, as my opponent focuses this contention around physical violence. His assemblies are legal. Contention 1C: A Clear and Present Danger My opponent brings up the example of the 1919 Supreme Court Case Schenck v. United States. However, while the supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution, there is no exact law stating that hate speech is illegal. My opponent's framework states that what Fred Phelps is doing is illegal under law, but if there is no law explicitly stating this, it can't be illegal. Therefore this contention is invalid. Contention 2: Invasion of Privacy My opponent quotes, "Non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public." I will define intrusion as "the act of intruding or the state of being intruded; especially : the act of wrongfully entering upon, seizing, or taking possession of the property of another"[1]. Fred Phelps is clearly not intruding these funerals, as he is outside the funeral home, and is abiding by the Respect for Fallen Heroes act. Therefore, he is not directly intruding on the private affair, if he was protesting right next to the funeral, it would be considered an invasion of privacy, but that is clear not the case with Fred Phelps. Contention 3: Hate Speech The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[2] Therefore, the Fred Phelps protests are 100% legal, since the federal government cannot restrict what he is saying, by the law created in Gitlow v. New York in 1925. Contention 4: Harassment My opponent quotes that what Fred Phelps is doing is not considered free speech, and is considered harassment. I define 'harass' as "exhaust by attacking repeatedly". This is not what Fred Phelps is doing; He is voicing his own opinion, not 'exhausting by attacking repeatedly'[3]. He is not directly 'attacking' these soldiers. He is using his right to free speech advantageously. All in all, this means that Fred Phelps is not harassing the families of the dead soldiers, and therefore what he is doing is legal, by law. Therefore, I strong urge a vote for the Pro Side, as I have refuted all of my opponent's points, and instead strengthened mine. Cites: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] Gitlow v. New York (1925) [3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...