when the forefathers of america built the foundations of the nation, it was immediate on the need for the basic right to freedom of speech, hence the first ammendment. yet, where do we draw the line between having an opinion to promoting bigotry?

Westboro Baptist Church, Topeka Kansa, who's official website i believe is www.godhatesfags.com., has recently actively demonstrated at US soldier's funerals, with banners stating that "Thank GOD for dead soldiers", "Don't worship the dead", "Thank GOD for 9/11" and messages along that theme.

States are exploring restrictive legislations against demonstrations at military funerals, including Kentucky who had recently banned demonstrations. The government itself may instate federal laws against demonstrations against military funerals.

And now to the point of the topic, American Civil Liberties Union is aiding Westboro Church with a lawsuit against the law legislated by Kentucky in that freedom of speech is being obstructed. Were the forefather's flawed in their effort to create a nation that was to "protect" the individuals and form a secure state when it can't even prevent bigotry?

For an interview to Westboro follower conducted by FOX
http://spikedhumor.com/articles/24864/Fox_..._Protestor.html

I think that the particular institution is a prime example of religion taken into extreme, and not a fair reflection of Christianity or any religion for that matter, and is more the pity that such a thing should exist.

also, first ammendment allows the existence of KKK and Nazi party in America.

There are limitations to free speech that include libel, slander, obscenity, sedition and whatever the Supreme Court may ultimately decide. I saw that interview, linked above, when it was first telecast. Westboro spokeswoman, Shirley Roper,
claims support from God and Scripture to castigate those she identifies as having sinned. No doubt the ability for the Kentucky Legislature to prohibit this conduct at military funerals will end up before the US Supreme Court. But even moreso is the use of religion for political purposes. Churches receive exemption from taxes. When they go beyond preaching their religion to their believers in their own churches or meeting houses, then it's no longer the free exercise of religion but an attempt to force their religious beliefs on others and influence public opinion. That is not a protected right, and those that engage in such behavior should be taxed. Imagine the multiple $billions in real estate and other holdings that are amased by religions and churches-- tax free-- when they knowingly go beyond the bounds of God and Gospel.

The first ammendment is a good idea in practice but it doesn't work in theory when groups like this are allowed to spew their nonsense. A far right party like the British National Party is allowed to exist. But if it breaks the law of incitement to racial hatred
then at least action can be taken.

To be honest... if groups like this exist... it means the first amendment is not flawed.. it's working.. if they don't exist.. it would mean it's flawed...
If it's good or not is another discussion. =X
There's nothing wrong with the existence of KKK and Neo-Nazis.. it just show that we always have a bunch of morons in society, but it shows that our society is democratic. If you truly believe in democracy then you will have to have faith in it as well. There will always be small groups that have different meanings. In the Netherlands there is a political party called SGP. Their first priority is to take away women's voting right. (it's a conservative christian party). And they even have 2 chairs in our parlement. Which means... about 40.000 people voted for them, but it's not like they can influence our politics in a big way. Removing voting rights of women is totally unthinkable in the Dutch democracy.

Personally I am not a true believer of democracy though. Total democracy will only lead to realizing short term visions, although the first amendment is a good idea.. it's not flawed. Although... goverments are trying to reduce discrimination through civil rights legislation (not that it's bad or something) might be a bit double.. i mean, first you state that there's freedom for this and that.. and then you try to limit it through civil rights legislation lol. But I guess only the court can decide on these matters.

good point. i never thought about that. it can't be flawed if it's working.

so we should have limited freedom then, so long as it's within reason? but that's the basic point of my first post though. there shouldn't be a problem with voicing an opinion as long as it doesn't advocate hatred towards another, be it, religion, race, age, etc.

so the topic will be changed from flawed to right or wrong!

A democracy guarantees one certainty-- there will be a majority and a minority. Amendments are supposed to be guarantees that protect the "rights" of the minority from the majority. (Have all of an individual's rights yet been defined?) But as with laws, loopholes are usually found to circumvent the intended protection, and those gaps require repair. The courts have extended their authority from interpretation and adjudiction of the law to that which includes legislation, which is not their Constitutional function. It obvious that the legislators have not kept pace with the ills of society.

In terms of the original post, hate is not a protected speech (speech can be reworded so as not to inflict hate). Is ridicule or that which is inflamatory or is exclusiveness protected? If in doubt, the courts will decide, based on the laws in the books. But it will "cost" to find out.

Is democracy an end in itself or is there a better or more egalitarian political/social concept that is yet to be found that will supercede it?

i remember the Fox News interview with Shirley Roper. oh boy, was she a nut to the max. but anyways, i think the first amendment is definitely right. although it doesn't know where to draw the line between free speech and bigotry, that's where the other laws come into play. laws which guarantee equality for all like the equality amendments for blacks and women protect citizens from racist acts like those of the KKK.

I think hate speech and bigotry is protected under the first amendment. am I wrong on this?
I do know that you can't yell "fire" in a theater or "bomb" in a plane or at the airport. I am not sure if both are actual laws. if it's not law, yelling "bomb" at the airport will probably guarantee you a very thorough cavity search w/o lube.

Just think of it this way, would you rather be in Iran where you have to watch every word you say, or be in America, where you would have to deal with a very limited number of bigots? I think I would choose the latter.

One note, the First Amendment does not explicitly state "Freedom of Speech" it states that "Congress Shall pass no law blah blah blah" It did not limit state governments to limit our speech rights initially. But after many supreme court opinions, individual freedom of speech has pretty much been established except commercial speech must be regulated, and speech that pose a "clear and present danger".

^ You make a good point but the people can always file a lawsuit against the US government because Congress did not pass a law that supports their actions.