As above, speech can be used to hurt people -- threats, intimidation, bullying, harassment, libel, defamation, incitement, fraud, scams, hoaxes, cult inductions (and questionably, sedition) can all be crimes that cause real damage to another person, and are in no way protected by the right to "freedom of speech".

Try shouting the word "bomb" in an airport and see how well "free speech" protects you the effects of your action

"Hate speech" laws are generally crafted with very specific wording to ensure that they're not able to be used by the state as weapons of censorship, or to arbitrarily attack the rights of groups that aren't hurting people.

It's amazing to me that WBC has managed to defend all of their hurtful actions under "free speech"... surely they must've crossed a line into at least the realm of harassment at least once by now?

There are no such thing as an "anonymous" organisation.

Yeah, so when you taunt "anonymous" and dare them to attack you, you're really presenting that dare to every person who is capable of acting on it, who doesn't want to take personal responsibility for their actions. They're as ethereal as "the terrorists".

I just don't like slippery slopes, and once the government gets involved in anything, that's the very definition of a slippery slope.

Still, though.... it's really hard to defend WBC in any way, shape or form. Man, those are some revolting people. And yeah, it's hard to believe that they have managed to avoid actual harassment convictions. A lot of what they do has really crossed all sorts of lines.

A new law does not need to be created to deal with these people.
A good lawyer and by having the families suing them, the court is able to fit WBC as one that caused one/more of (threats, intimidation, bullying, harassment, libel, defamation, incitement, etc.)

The thing about freedom of speech is exactly what LennyLen cited. It gives you the right to express yourself as long as you don't commit a crime.

About Anonymous, just as Olof Hedman said, they are not a centralized organization by definition.

There's no new slippery slope for the government to abuse, because courts already have laws to deal with the offences listed above. Anti-discrimination/anti-defamation/anti-harassment/anti-humiliation laws are anti-hate-speech laws.

It seems maybe the term "hate speech" has different connotations in the US, than what I'm used to though...
e.g. this quote for wikipedia seems contradictory to me -- it says that hate speech is protected by the constitution, because it protects free speech, but then goes on to list exceptions to that protection (and it's the exceptions which make "hate speech" already illegal).

Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States ... speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation...[/quote]

For example, if someone in Australia was to say "I don't like <insert racial group>", then there's no law to weild against them, but if someone was to say "<insert racial group> all perform <insert defaming act> so you should <insert discriminatory action> them" then that person would be guilty of defamation/vilification/inciting discrimination, which you'd colloquially call "hate speech".

As far as WBC is concerned, their guilt of "hate speech" would be something along the lines of inciting people to commit harassment.

Some states here take it a bit further, and you're simply not allowed to publicly promote the hatred of a group based on race/religion/sexuality. If the WBS were to visit those states and tell people that "you should hate gays, because gays are gay", then that would also be a "hate speech" crime... However, if they said "you should avoid befriending gays that are openly displaying their lifestyle, because public displays of homosexual affection make my God uncomfortable", then there would be no crime. It basically just requires bigots to at least be educated enough to choose their words wisely.

Obligatory "WBC is contemptable waste" comment just because it can't be said enough.

Anyhow, at the risk of spreading rumors, I'm fairly certain I've read/watched something before that explained how the WBC keeps one foot ahead of all potential legal snares: the large majority of their "family" and church are in legal professions. So in the spirit of furthering their church's success and infamy, they're always on the cutting edge of legal counsel.

What I don't get (well, I don't get any of it, they're f**king nutjobs with no ethical standards) is what the point of their actions really is. I want to say "free publicity", which is obviously working, but what would they do with it? I can't imagine that kind of attention brings new members to their church. It's not making them any money. And I refuse to believe that such an organized, practiced, and educated group would be after the real-life equivalent of a trolling session. At least, I refuse to believe that about any sane human. So maybe that's my problem.

Being the internet, are we sure the seed of this action (the idea the WBC was going to picket the school) is valid? There was a similar notion about the Dark Knight Rises premier theater shooting here in Denver, and crowds showed up to block the WBC, but they never made an appearance. Part of me wonders if someone's just ginning up attention by throwing the threat out there via twitter.

Part of me wonders if someone's just ginning up attention by throwing the threat out there via twitter.

As horrible as the Connecticut shootings were, I don't think even WBC would be stupid enough to walk into a riot turned beatdown turned death-by-active-act-of-stupidity-and-moral-indecency.