Reply #87: This is the hardest part about free speech

[GinaMaria]

According to our laws we can come pretty darn close to harrassing private citizens. I can't imagine having either of these groups disrupting funeral services of someone I love. My experience has taught me that when people don't like what you are saying they will try to shut you up, lock you out and keep you from being heard. It happened to me by a bunch wing nuts at a parade where I protested *. I've also had to endure the idiot, religeous freak on State Street who has a microphone shouting to people that they are going to hell for smoking cigarettes. I've also been shoved into FAZs so far away from * there was no way he saw or heard protestors.

I find the whole thing confusing, frankly. Why on earth can we speak freely to any powerless joe or jane citizen to the point of disrupting their lives, but 'elected' officials are free from hearing us, seeing us?
I find it surprising that people who are 1st A. supporters see no problem with FAZs for protestors but defend the right of some nut with a microphone on State street.

Maybe I have this thing all wrong, but don't we have a 1st A. so we can speak freely to those with power, those with authority and those who govern our lives? Wasn't that the problem our founders were trying to remedy? It seems like a waste of free speech rights when we cannot express ourselves to our own government. However,private citizens seeking a medical procedure, attending a funeral,or walking down the street at lunch time seem to the be the ones who need FAZs. What's the point of free speech if all we can do is harrass each other?

Am I making a distinction where none exists? Should there be a difference in 'free speeching' a governement official who should work for you and a private citizen?