funny shit!!

Great... another move which they will use to further themselves as a persecuted and repressed group...

I find this issue far to important to the freedom of humanity to let this go.

There is a huge difference between "Intent" in an end goal, and the "tactic" how one goes about obtaining that goal.

The mistake being made LONG TERM by using government in this manner, what people seem to forget is they may not be in the majority position of being a policeman, lawyer, or judge, or lawmaker, deciding what "hate" is.

Laws like that could eventually deem sites like this as "hate speech". Laws like that could get cartoons like South Park banned.

The good intent of wanting people to get along, I agree with. But only in the free market of ideas with the regulation of COMMON LAW, not common likes or dislikes. You cannot force your neighbor to always say nice things about you. Theists don't always say nice things about us, and we dont always say nice things about them. To put government in the position of deciding what we can or cannot say about each other is DANGEROUS to the freedom of both sides.

Be carefull what you wish for, you might not like what you get.

"Blasphemy laws are the first sign of tyrany" Lord Acton.

...Actually, to be completely fair, I think this is a strawman.

How is Freddy's invocations of violence and political browbeating 'dissent'? How is telling people that 'God Hates Faggots!!!!' a point of debate or contention?

It isn't either. It's strictly hateful and insulting libel.

The Phelps church is only a relatively short drive away, as I live in central Kansas and they are located in Topeka. We get to hear about their crap all the time. I don't like the UK law, even if I like the idea of there being some way to ban his ass from appearing somewhere. I think it would be more fun to have some guys standing outside of his church kissing each other while ol' Fred is giving sermons. If he comes out sporting wood, you'll know why he protests so much.

There is a fine line between offence and discrimination, just as there is a fine line between light-hearted taunts and actual serious bullying. The old phrase: "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" is in fact false.

Would you Brian, say that children should not be prevented from bullying the fat kid in the playground? Bullying is a huge problem in schools around the world, I for one suffered sustained bullying for many years in school, and to this day I still have the psychological scars that affect my life. I would argue that what the Phelps do is more than just exercising freedom of speech, but actual sustained psychological abuse. Funerals will always be attended by the bereaved at the moment in life they are most vulnerable, a huge mob shouting abuse at you, is not just offensive (if it were just that I would be with you on this), but it is abuse.

We have the rights to act as we please, until the point where we cause harm (and I disagree entirely when you say that harm can only be physical). You wouldn't give people the right to do whatever the hell they wanted if that involved violent assault. The Phelps should have the right to say what they want, certainly, given that it is in honest, frank discussion. Protesting at funerals however, we can safely say is abuse.

I can't speak for the government, indeed I am no supporter of them, but I would say the banning of the Phelps' is not for their views but their actions. Right-wing religious homophobes come in and out of the country every day, it's not an issue, that is their right, the point is that the Phelps are an abusive family, who have no doubt caused psychological trauma to thousands of people. If you look at the list, you will see it is fairly short, and the vast majority of outspoken controversial people are free to come and go as they please.

I agree that the right to freedom of speech should be maintained at all times. I am a fairly radical left-winger whose views contradict the mainstream British views. But my freedom of speech has never been curtailed, escept once as an immature teenager when I verbally abused a police officer. However, I do have certain concerns about the level of police brutality and curtailing of peaceful protest during the G20 summits in London last month (which I didn't go to as I couldn't afford it). A newspaper seller was beaten and subsequently died of a heart attack on his way home from work (which took him near the protests). Many more people were beaten and arrested for simply being there making their (non-offensive or harmful) views heard that week. But what worries me less is that the police can be charged for acting unlawfully by the British legal system.

Of course it is difficult to say what may cause harm or mere offence. Some people can laugh off abusive remarks, others may actually suffer as a result, particularly when they are vulnerable. But does the arbitrary nature of these lines mean we shouldn't at least attempt to curtail certain ways of expressing views? Most boundaries are arbitrary: when does a light tap become a punch? In Britain we have seen fatal race riots in the years following WWII, even recent ones this century. People have the right to be racist, but not to incite it, just as - to use JS Mill's analogy - we have the right to believe corn-dealers to be theives, so long as we don't scream "CORN DEALERS ARE THEIVES!!" to an angry mob outside a corn-dealer's house.

I was picked on as a kid. I turned out fine.

As far as protesting anything, much less a funeral. If one is NOT impeding the progress of others, or violating private property, and are maintaining noise laws, have the proper permits, then what they are protesting is protected by the First Amendment.

Atheists have been equated to Hitler and Po Pot. THAT IS AND SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY FREE SPEECH.

"You are fat" is and should be protected by free speech.

"Jews are liers" is and should be protected by free speech.

It is only when you violate COMMON LAWS, such as committing acts of violence are calling for acts of violence on on others, that the government should step in.

Saying offensive things is not a call to violence.