Pastor Fred Phelps should have the right to picket funerals.

My opponent is right that the resolution should read: "Pastor Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church HAVE the right to picket funerals", not "should have". To save characters, I will refer to Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church simply as the Phelps. Framework: The Phelps fall into a crack in the system where their actions are protected by some laws, but in violation of others. This debate's purpose is to 1) analyze these laws and judge which ones have greater value in this controversy, thus deciding if his actions are legal or not. We must make the framework more inclusive to have a more substantive debate. Morality arguments are necessary to keep in mind because without them, no controversy would exist, and we would not be having this debate. I'm sure my opponent and I both agree that the actions of the Phelpses are immoral, and thus the pro does not have to defend the Phelps's actions; he only must prove they are legal. The burden is on the pro to refute all of the laws I have chosen, for if the con proves that the Phelpses picketing violates even one law, then they do NOT have the right to picket. Contention 1: First Amendment Consider Contention 1 both a constructive for the con and a rebuttal to the pro's contention. You can consider all of my contentions as rebuttals to my opponent's second contention. 1A: First Amendment The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " Thus, the First Amendment protects both the Phelpses right to freedom of speech but also the right of funeral attendees to peacefully assemble. My opponent states that this gives Fred Phelps the right to "picket funerals". However, picketing funerals is different from "freedom of speech", as it tends to have catastrophic repercussions. We'll examine these in the following subpoints. 1B: Phelps presence violates "peaceful assembly". The official court Supreme Court documents released from the Snyder v. Phelps case state that Phelps "knew that the funeral was at a Catholic church and consequently targeted the Snyder family by bringing and flaunting a sign that stated "Pope in Hell". Furthermore, Phelps "knew that their presence could elicit violence… Law enforcement determined that the Phelps' presence created a credible threat of violence. In this regard, local law enforcement deployed a SWAT team and a command post was established. Additionally, the fire department, ambulances, and miscellaneous government equipment were in the area on standby to prepare for the violence associated with Phelps' presence. " [1] 1C: A Clear and Present Danger In the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenk v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that "speech could be punished ‘if the words are used in such circumstances and of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substansive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. " [2] The actions of the Phelps, as shown in 1B, poses a very "clear and present danger" not only to themselves, but also to the mourners are the funerals and to local residents. Christopher McKinney of The Retriver Weekly writes, compares funeral picketing "to yelling fire in a movie theater; doing so inspires chaos and panic, and innocent people can be injured or even killed. " [3] The Phelps knowingly picket funerals with the intent of causing such controversy. Because these actions pose a threat to local residents, they are illegal in the United States. Contention 2: Invasion of Privacy "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. " [5]. The actions of the Phelpses clearly invades the privacy of each and every member, of every family, at every funeral procession that they have protested in the past decade. This once again makes his actions illegal. Contenion 3: Hate Speech Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. [6] The message the Phelps seek to spread through their protests are nothing but hate speech – which is illegal in the United States. Contention 4: Harassment When asked whether he thought the Phelpses actions were legal under the First Amendment, Tod Robberson of Dallas News stated, "I strongly disagree. This is not free speech. It's harassment. The Times likens Phelps's protests to the Nazi Party's right to march or Hustler Magazine's right to publish pornography. But this is an inaccurate comparison. If Phelps were standing in his Westboro Baptist Church yelling "God hates f*gs" at the top of his lungs, I would defend his right to do so. If he wanted to publish those remarks in a Nazi porn magazine, I would defend his right to do so. But he is deliberately trying to desecrate military funeral processions to make his statement, essentially forcing law-abiding people to reroute their trip to bury fallen soldiers in order to avoid these deliberate insults. There's a fundamental difference between this and free speech. " [4] [1] . http://www.scotusblog.com... [2] . http://law.jrank.org... [3] . http://www.retrieverweekly.com... [4] . http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com... [5] . http://definitions.uslegal.com... [6] Nockleby, John T. (2000), "Hate Speech," in E