The example set by the Westbury Loonies proves that free speech is a necessarily limited and defined privilege.

Nobody can yell 'FIre!" in a crowded theatre. And for good reason - someone might get hurt.

If the most vile among us cannot see a similar maxim in play while they desecrate the memory of a fallen loved one, it may be time to yell "Fire!" of another sort.

As much as I knock on John Douglas, Senate Bill 606 is one bill that has always had my full support.

Grieving families, just like everyone else, have a right to privacy. A funeral is a private event, even though most funeral processions pass through public property.

While the First Amendment protects unpopular political speech, people also have an inherent right to privacy.

This is one of those "Where do you draw the line?" types of bills, and I think it does a good job of giving families space and time to grieve while not prohibiting unpopular speech.

Larry,

Free speech isn't a privilege, it's a natural right. It isn't a right given to us by government, it's an inherent right that government is suppose to jealously defend.

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre isn't an example of free speech, because no one has an inherent right to cause a panic and get someone killed.

What these Westboro folks do is free speech, that's SB 606 doesn't prohibit them from yelling at the top of their lungs for as long as they want. It merely provides a space of protection for those who are involved in the funeral procession.

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre isn't an example of free speech, because no one has an inherent right to cause a panic and get someone killed.

The example must fit a certain criteria, so it's not a "natural" right. It is not self defining. How may we jealously defend a "right" when there well may be differing definitions of the correct example?

I am not a proponent of so-called rights that defy common sense or decency. I have no right to desecrate or defile your beliefs or your family.

If speech is a natural right, then there can be no criminal or civil legal action resulting from said expression. There can be no justifiable retribution resulting from mere words or expressions of thought. Anything said or expressed that does not physically harm another or his property should be jealously defended by the government?

My point is that morality does play a role that supercedes personal "rights." Failing that, there is no social contract. When we can control words and their meaning, we can control thought and actions. Therefore the power of "speech" is open to corruption, and it cannot be assumed that all "speech" is morally or socially equivalent.

Larry,

Defining a "right" is very simple. A right is something that you or I can do as much as we want, whenever we want, and to any extent that we want UNTIL our exercising of that "right" impedes another person from exercising his/her rights.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_Principle

Like I said though, I am very much in favor of SB 606.

Larry
If I own the property next door and wanted to let the freeks use it, would I be able to? If not , would that violate my property rights.
Also I may be wrong but we do not have a RIGHT to privacy ( just property rights).

Doug,

In the Constitution, the only thing close to a right to privacy is the fourth amendment.

The Supreme Court, however, has ruled on many occasions, that people do have an inherent right to privacy.