Reply #32: That's twice you have erected a Straw Man to knock down.

[11 Bravo]

First by claiming that my approach would allow Phelps to enter my house uninvited, and now with the claim that I believe the First Amendment allows one to say "whatever you want WHEREVER (emphasis mine) you want". I of course made neither claim, but don't let that get in the way. (After all, you have a First Amendment right to misrepresent my words.) You are correct in stating that restrictive laws have been passed. Are you in favor of those laws? Do you support the "legal" use of "free-speech" zones to shield Bush from the dissent of the citizenry? If so, then I will disagree with you as a matter of law, but will respect your consistency in the matter. But if you think, as I and a host of legal scholars do, that those "free-speech" zones are clearly unconstitutional, then how can you favor the legal codification of exactly such a further restriction, simply because you happen to disagree with the particular content of the speech being expressed? Right now what Fred Phelps does is legal. Vile and hateful, but legal. Steps are underway to abridge his right to free expression. I prefer not to slide any farther down that particular slope.