Snyder vs. Wesboro Baptist Church

My opponent gives many viable arguements, all of them in support of the liberty of freedom of speech, the ideal so very practiced by our great nation. I too support this, and the right to freedom of speech is irrefutable and undeniable. There are, however, many cases that have questioned the freedom of speech in extenuating circumstances. New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964, Gertz v. Robert Welch, 1974, HustlerMagazine v. Falwell, 1988, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. , 1990 (. http://www.usatoday.com...) The question of whether or not they have the ability to the 1st Amendment is not in question, so my opponent's stance is not a proper one to take in this case. The debate is measuring which right has more priority. In this case, I believe it is with Snyder. =REBUTTALS= The matter of unpopularity is not the issue. You said yourself that these statements made by them are "evil, repugnant, and. .. hate(ful)". Therein, my friend, lies the issue. These verbal missles of hate were launched as close as they could be in proximity to the funeral. There was no purpose other than to target this funeral, antagonize, and torture an already emotionally distressed audience. In this hazardous offense, they endanger the saftey of others by targeting this emotionally distressed audience. I would like to point out the government recognized it as a hazard, because they sent SWAT, Paramedics, local, state, and sheriff police agencies. They did make many referances to him like, "He's going to burn in hell. " The government, above all else, is sworn to protect it's people, even if it infringes upon some 'garunteed' rights. An example of this is during wartime. Industrial production can be regulated by the government. Also, prices and rations may be administered (against general constitutionality) because it is understood that this must be done to protect the government. The government has censored newspapers and people during times of war as well to quell domestic uprisings after WWI. This was done to protect the people. From your definition of military honors, this critera was not met, for he was not buried with the paying of respect or with gratitude. They imeded a FEDERAL LAW. Furthermore, Mr. Snyder knew that they were there doing that, because the funeral procession had to have been rerouted and he stated "A father should not have to look away from anything at his own son's funeral. " =NOTES= My opponent assumes the wrong stance on this debate. I know as well as he the importance of the 1st Amendment, and I am not arguing that. However, I do not understand the deliberate intention of the WBC to maliciously damage the memory of this solider and over 400,000 other funerals. =CONCLUSION= It is my purposal they could have done this protest at some other time or some other place, but not as close as they could to the funeral, nor should they have caused a domestic uprising. The main thing this thing has so much attention is not because of what they said, but in the manner they said it and that they said it at this solder's burial day, during the time his memory was supposed to recieve "military honors". I disapprove of my opponents patrotic appeal by his specific urge to vote.