Thank you for being the only person that responded to the point (might've been my fault, maybe I wasn't clear). I think most people would say that what the WBC does is harassment; so, other than the fine legal difference between whether the harassment occurs on public grounds or private property, how is one form of harassment protected as free speech and another form of harassment not?
The WBC are a family of lawyers. They are very careful not to step over the legal line, while inciting others to do so. They then sue any and all transgressors, and use the money to continue their campaign of finding more people to sue.
Once you're onto them, they become incredibly easy to ignore, or counter-troll if that's your game. Doing everything you can to piss them off, while still remaining within the bounds of the law, tends to send them scurrying to their next funeral.
no. I'm not a lawyer, yet i'm pretty sure that what WBC does wouldn't fit harassment criteria. I suppose for the harassment the specific action needs to be targeted at the person being harassed. Without specific targeting, they just express their opinion, wrong opinion at the wrong time and place, yet not illegal.
Heh, I had an unfair advantage: I didn't trouble to familiarize myself with the WBC.
But by my reasoning, the difference would be legal precedents stating that pickets are legal (irrespective of what you use them to promote) and repeated unsolicited telephone calls are not (irrespective of what you say).
That's not entirely true. You can't write "God Hates Blacks" (per the Racial Hatred Act) but you can write "God Hates Fags". There seems to be no logical basis for this difference.
To clarify: are you talking about the U.S. or another country (a moment on Google suggests maybe Australia?). I'm almost certain that writing "God Hates Blacks" (or waving a sign saying that, etc) is perfectly legal in the United States.
