Write an original 250+ word post by Wednesday of the week the discussion is due.  In your post mention the article you have read at least twice and give your opinion on the issue in a clear and un

 Write an original 250+ word post by Wednesday of the week the discussion is due.  In your post mention the article you have read at least twice and give your opinion on the issue in a clear and understandable manner. Always discuss any ethical issues that are involved. Cite any other sources you use when writing your post at the end of your submission.  After writing your own post, reply to the posts of two other students before the discussion board due date.  Replies should be at least 150 words long and ask questions or otherwise encourage discussion.  Replies that simply compliment or disagree with the post will not be accepted for credit. 

1- While I strongly disagree with the way the WBC goes about there protests, in particular the functions in which they choose to hold their protests it is within their first amendment rights to do so peacefully. As long as they are not being aggressive and violent then they are protected by the law no matter how ridiculous or crazy their viewpoints seem they are allowed to have their voices heard. As far as the privacy of these functions are concerned it is my understanding that the fourth amendment protects your personal privacy and privacy within your home. If a protest is being held in a public forum then I don't believe the WBC is violating the families fourth amendment rights as it is written in the Constitution. As far as the rights of those who want to come out in defense of these families and protest the protesters that is also within their first amendment rights if done peacefully. As it was said in the Huffington post article those coming out in defense of the families were just making a human wall a peaceful protest of their own to deter the WBC which worked. I felt that was a perfectly execute reaction to an action they felt was immoral and in some opinions unethical as well. I liked how the article noted several different groups coming together to counter the protests of the WBC and doing so in a organized and peaceful manner. I feel that's what makes our constitution and country so great. In conclusion I will say that while I understand the public disdain for the way the WBC goes about their business they have the right to be heard. In my opinion I think the best counter is to use our rights and effectively push back like in this article, or even just take their words with a grain of salt and simply ignore them as best as possible. Both our fourth amendment rights are very important and it's hard for me to say which has more importance. It is important to understand that both have boundaries and limitations and it's important to understand and respect those boundaries.

2-  

This article covers many fine lines that I was blissfully unaware of. I was unaware that these groups existed and I am in shock that protesting at funerals is actually a hobby for some folks. I feel bad for these people that they aren’t into something more productive like RED for ED, or walking in a race/course for a good cause like to fight child hood leukemia, I’m just saying in my own opinion that maybe their energy could and should be spent elsewhere. Because no matter the rules as far as rights are concerned, because in my stance it is wrong for the WBC to protest at any funeral. I am glad that there are groups like as the article calls them good Samaritans or the motorcyclists are aware, unlike I was,  of these protesters at the funerals and can detour anything that would ruin someone’s funeral.

Which right is most important I feel is not a question but more of just a general what if question because at the end of the day the law is the law and the first amendment holds true no matter what we feel is morally right or wrong. I feel that eventually to beat the WBC at their own game of using the first Amendment as their get out of free jail card that flexibility fairness needs to be applied at least for the ones directly in the line of fire which as a mother I instantly think of immediate family that grieve for the lost individual.  Nobody should have to be yelled at while they grieve for a lost one about a topic someone feels strongly about. I feel that’s endangerment and intentional harm on the protester's part. To inflict even more pain on a family when trying to cope just so the protesters can make a point is wrong. So yes eventually a change should be made using but for now the amendment holds and we can only hope more motorcyclists are prepared for the next time.