Perhaps the greatest oxymoron in regards to the WBC is there defense of self by using the First Amendment to justify their behavior (namely, protesting the funerals of the deceased, particularly dead soldiers).
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have in the past vouched for the "freedom of speech" the Phelps family and company are supposedly entitled too when they carry out these acts. Many individuals, even if they disagree with the philosophy and are fundamentally opposed to the Westboro Baptist Church, argue that the Phelps do have the freedom to go about doing these things without legal reprecussions. This controversy not only applies to the WBC but by inclination extends itself to the much broader subject of freedom of speech in general. With that said, while we still remain a nation (in large part) that believes in the right to free speech, there is no argument that there have been limitations and restrictions even for a country such as our own. At times (or perhaps any given time) these limitations and restrictions have been perceived as violations of our basic human rights, and in certain cases people like myself would be in agreement with this stance.
However, it also stands to reason that words are like any other utility in that they can cause great harm and injury especially when abused. Are the Phelps using only free speech, or are they ultimately concerned with intimidation and verbal coercion, even if the threat of physical violence is non-existent? If you are a believer that the First Amendment applies to everything verbal, regardless of its offensiveness or even its potency to cause emotional damage, then it is strongly urged you look within yourself to consider this for the time being:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSX7GLZ62ZA&feature=fvst
