There is a difference between "free speech" and "abusive/hate speech"
There are people here saying that these pieces of scum, the WBC, should be allowed to bring up their "points" in the name of "free speech." The truth is that that implies these people have anything to actually say. They don't. It's just spewed out hatred, abuse, and slander. Unless I'm mistaken, there are people who prosecuted for statements that fall under these categories. Not only that, but our First Amendment extends the right to free speech only up until said speech is obscene. Well, having signs that say "God Hates Fag" and "Thank God for 9/11" seem pretty obscene to me.
Good God, people, there is no "free speech" in demonstrating in front of a ceremony dedicated to the shooting victims in Connecticut (celebrating the deaths as "god's judgement"). It's simply abuse and nothing more. There is something seriously wrong with our society when it's acceptable for people with actual valid points, like the Occupy movement, to get maced, tased, and arrested and yet these scumbags get the benefit of the doubt. (Maybe the powers that be only allow free speech to those who aren't actual threats)
How is there anything about this abusive hate group that allows them to be taken seriously in anyway?? There is nothing contributive about the points these people bring up; they're simply illogical, irrational, and unreasonable hatemongers. If they wanted validity, they would civically bring up points such as low morality or health in a homosexual lifestyle. But they don't, they just spew hatred.
Abuse and hate speech is not a right, and is not something to be tolerated. No, I won't favor prosecuting them for being bat-shit-crazy wingnuts, but there is nothing wrong in barring them from dishing their disruptive hatred. Honestly, would any of you allow the Ku Klux Klan to prodce their own public TV show from which they can spread their views? By y'all's logic, they should have the right to make TV shows for children that is accessible across the nation.