I don't disagree with the justifications behind protecting speech, even (and especially) things that I find reprehensible. However, I think it's a bit of a lie to say that law doesn't have fine lines or distinctions.
Now with that said freedom of speech is a special law. And obviously one that cuts both ways. But a key reason why the law should largely exist untampered is that even if you say something I think is offensive, I can rely on a few things:
1) If it's absurd it will be discarded by most people.
2) If it's absurd those people it would convince, probably already believe it.
3) With freedom of speech I can argue the point prior to irreversible damage.
Now there are some cases where freedom of speech don't apply and those are generally cases where the three points above don't apply. For example, the classic of yelling "Fire" in a crowded room. Someone else yelling, "there is no fire" is not likely to be heard and even if "Fire" is seemingly absurd, most people may not discard due to potential harm. Yada yada.
But outside of cases that violate the above, the law should stand. Otherwise the consequences, shutting down opposing speech, will almost certainly be worse.
And yet the various flavors of creationism (all equally absurd by measures of science) have convinced half of the U.S. of their validity.
The issue though isn't a link between speech and action (PE coaches don't violate this although their barks usually directly create action). It's the link between speech and furthering a specific crime.
Just as if you announced "mikeryan is going to hell! the Fag!" while chainsawing live babies you're committing a crime. The expressing of your opinion is not a crime, but the fact that you're expressing your opinion doesn't exempt you from other criminal liabilities.
no. I'm not a lawyer, yet i'm pretty sure that what WBC does wouldn't fit harassment criteria. I suppose for the harassment the specific action needs to be targeted at the person being harassed. Without specific targeting, they just express their opinion, wrong opinion at the wrong time and place, yet not illegal.
But by my reasoning, the difference would be legal precedents stating that pickets are legal (irrespective of what you use them to promote) and repeated unsolicited telephone calls are not (irrespective of what you say).
Once you're onto them, they become incredibly easy to ignore, or counter-troll if that's your game. Doing everything you can to piss them off, while still remaining within the bounds of the law, tends to send them scurrying to their next funeral.
If I called you 500 times and simply said "Hello, hello, hello", that is still harassment. The WBC people apply for permits and protest on public property. What they say isn't relevant.
In general, your actions and intent are more germane than the content of your speech. That's a concept critical to free speech -- controversial or offensive is far more important to protect than typical conversation.
There is a strong argument against exercising the freedom of speech the way they do. The right to speak freely should not trump the right to stop listening. This is not the case here. Whoever attends the funeral has their right to stop listening seriously limited.
The difference is a small, but visible and under appreciated line between free speech and verbal assault.