Originally Posted by jonathan7
My question would be is true "freedom" the right to speak, behave and act as you want, so long as that doesn't interfere with another individuals freedom?
That is an aspect of it. Of speech. That is more or less what I said above. Though it should be noted there's gag orders of sorts against such intrusive/disruptive/etc. things as in your example. They must stay a certain distance away from it.
Agreed it's distasteful and stupid. Period. Yet as much as it annoys me, I will stand for their right to do it. I'm not offended*, though perhaps a bit more lenient than that of your country in that I would at least allow it but rule it has to not be disruptive.
*Though personally would not blame you for taking weapons or something to beat the bejeepers out of them.
I'd rule as a governing philosophy:
It shall be rendered ineffective if their aim is to disrupt the event. At distance it would not, could not cause disturbances for the event and for anyone coming to or leaving from the event, including the motorcade (or whatever equivalent). Any violation hereof is subjected to legal infraction. You almost have to go out of your way to be subject to it, as they cannot accost anyone within that designated distance.
If it's any consolation, as-is I think the police tend to look the other way if it escalates to a level within reason with offended people.
The point of allowing it? Well, in a way it's an example to the rest of society of what or whom not
to be. I think it's important for perspective sake.
As you more or less asked me about my wanting to shut up a holocaust denier in some thread long ago:
Is it not important to let others speak their piece, no matter how much of a "nut" they are? Essentially it was the "let them have enough rope to hang themselves" analogy, allowing open discussion.