Excuse me? Have you read a single word that I have posted? Please point out exactly where I suggested that we should “just start passing new laws abridging freedom of speech and assembly.”
And please also point out where I based my arguments on “my personal opinion of what is decent behavior.” I have given you, in several cases, reasoning which was based on well known ideas of political philosophy, which you have apparently dismissed out of hand. You have every right to ignore those arguments if you choose, and to refuse to address them. But don’t then turn around and lie about what I have been saying.
It’s not different. It just wasn’t clear. That’s also the first post that I offered in this particular part of the discussion, and I have subsequently clarified. You have also omitted the second half of that post where I posed an as yet unanswered question, one that is important to clarify the meaning of the originally quoted statement.
But, since you apparently missed my saying so up until now, I will point out that in post #68 I stated at the top:
“Therefore, we circumvent the need for a special law and the problems it creates by simply enforcing the laws that exists for harassment.”
And at the bottom:
“And I concede to your agreement with the ACLU that special laws inspired by Phelps are more dangerous than necessary and could be more harm than good.”
I have, since the beginning, agreed with the ACLU, and you, on the fact that creating new laws is a very dangerous thing to do. However, I have also disagreed, and continue to do so, that all of Phelps’ antics are protected under the First Amendment.
You seem to be in the majority in your pessimism. If I have been unclear on this point as well, then I apologize, but I don’t think that everything that Phelps does is illegal, regardless of how disgusting I think it is. What I am saying, and I have given my reasons for thinking this, is that he does cross the line, regardless of how often or how rare, from the realm of “free speech” into the realm of harassment. There is obviously a grey area of personal opinion, even in this thread, about exactly where that line is, which is why I have repeatedly asked for someone other than myself to explain what they think to be harassment and why. What we have a duty to do, as a society, is agree (comprimise) on exactly where that line should be, and to ensure without exception that those who do cross that line are punished.
Again I feel that you are working in reverse with this reasoning. Phelps may very well have been within “legal bounds” with his shenanigans. However, the law does not determine what is right or wrong, so to say that a previous law has protected his actions in the past doesn’t mean that he was in the right to do them, and, if the previous laws or previous interpretation of laws has been wrong, then we should examine them and change them. To rely solely on past legality is to circumvent rational inquiry into those laws, which is something that we should be doing regularly.
That said, I am irked at the need for communities to instantly appeal to the government to solve all of their woes in the first place. There are other ways to put Phelps in his place, such as the brilliant fundraiser described by Punkyova, or the creative methods used in The Laramie Project.