I stand corrected.
No problem. I thought the same thing because I’d never heard of any violence. The reporters are prolly all happy when they get the shit kicked out of them and don’t bother to report.
I know. Miller was just asking for cases where people were arrested for saying they were going to kill the President.
What about Canada’s “genocide and hate speech” law, and Germany’s Nazi law? Are Canada and Germany like North Korea because they ban hateful speech?
In the case of “hate speech”, it’s a step in North Korea’s direction, as it is almost impossible to define. In the case of advocating genocide, there’s implied intent to do harm (or incite others to do harm), so I think that’s a different category of speech. I think Germany’s Nazi law is going too far, but given their history, I can certainly understand their overzealous reaction.
On the issue of limitations of free speech, I would find it acceptable to put restrictions on speech that urges the death or destruction of other people when the person uttering that speech can be reasonable believed to have the will and means to make these deaths actually happen.
e.g. Starting a webpage saying “I know how to make home-made bombs, I’m going to blow up an army base / SUV dealership / mosque / abortion clinic - e-mail me if you want to help.”
I agree with Arnold above. Another example is “Your money or your life!”. It isn’t necessary that a weapon be brandished to constitute an aggression.
Personally if I had policy making power with ACLU I’d vote for them not to assist Phelps-Roper. It has nothing to do with whether the issue’s unconstitutional- I think it is in their constitutional rights to trample on the flag- but because the Phelps-Roper clan has been represented by the ACLU numerous times in the past and because they are a clan of lawyers. They should be required to represent themselves or pay legal fees to those who do as they are always going to need representation in some venue or other, while there are many less profile cases where civil rights are abridged where the people are (in addition to being more likeable) WITHOUT access to numerous lawyers and communal monies to be paid to said lawyers. I think the ACLU is representing the Phelps’ again mostly for the publicity of the case.
True, Sampiro, but I think that the appointment of a gay lawyer is even better.
Plus, to be honest, the Phelpses may go do-lally in the courtroom, and lose an appeal.
Worst case scenario: ACLU defends WBC. Makes a ton of headlines. News channels/papers/sites put up handy little pictures or videos of the Phelps. ACLU gets good publicity for doing what they are designed to do, and Phelps continues to convince the world, one funeral at a time that they are absolutely, batshit insane, hateful people. Win-Win.
Can anyone honestly support what they do? Are there any pro-WBC folks out there that aren’t related?
And yes, I think the ACLU should defend them, with the gayest, gay, gayishly gay, attorney on the books. It is a paper thin case. Heck, find the gayest person in Key West and get 'em across the bar in that state. I think sequins, feathers and Lots and Lots and Lots of rhinestones should be required on men and mullets, flannel, chain wallets and combat boots on the wimmenfolk. I’m ok pulling out all the stereotypical stops on this one folks. I’m ok with the Phelps going to the ACLU with their hat in their hand, but by god, it would be a party if I had my say. Hell, I’d make the attorneys get a guide dog just so I could wave a rainbow flag on its tail. I’d find a way to get Diana Ross and Cher to show up.
Then I’d make sure my little parade defended the holy livin’ bejeezus out of them.
How about Leonid the Magnificent? 
He’s a little subdued for what I had in mind, but definitely on the right side of the spectrum.
I love that guy. I still can’t figure out what his talent is but I always find him riveting.