While I agree with you on this, I am more content to point out Phelps' rights as a citizen than having a hidden agenda behind my support for Phelps' right to free speech.
I congratulate you on your contentment, but I assure you I have no hidden agenda. I unequivocally support every person's right to free speech.
Can't people understand that the rights that we enjoy must be applied to everyone and not just the people we think we like?
I understand that perfectly well.
I also understand that one cost of free speech is the malady of hate speech which can--and sometimes does--cross the line into the advocacy of hate crimes. We walk that legal line to remain both free to speak without fear and free to live without fear of harrassment or violence.
The closer hate speech approaches that line, the more clearly we all need to hear what is being said; the antibodies to ignorance and hate are knowledge and understanding, and silencing hate speech suppresses the body politic's response to the malady and allows that hate to fester.
To remind some fellow advocates of free speech who seem tempted to limit hateful but noncriminal speech that this is so does not indicate that I have a hidden agenda, or a less worthy set of motivations.
I contemplate pragmatic reasons to keep hateful speech free as one of the consolations of political philosophy. Understanding those reasons contributes to an understanding of how free speech and freedom from fear can both be maintained.
™ Version 4.2