rights are inalienable when they do not harm the innocent or trample preferred public policy. the second amendment protects the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, is highly restricted, and widely accepted as a right that one can remove themselves from keeping through a wide variety of antisocial behavior. the first amendment ought have equal checks and balances, as it's been acknowledged since antiquity that the pen is mightier than the sword, and that causing anxiety, fear or other forms of mental anguish is an actionable offense. this should not be protected speech. and while i laud PA's men in blue for blocking the group, perhaps allowing them to protest something where peoples' views are not as polarized as with the war would have been a wakeup call to the reality that we ought have no constitutional duty to allow, let alone protect, this kind of behavior. is it clean, speaking in terms of technicalities? no. but the notion that protecting hate-speech is a necessary component of the first amendment is equally shaky, and i think reason would win out if someone bothered to put up a serious opposition the longstanding injustice of wasting resources to protect people like westboro.
.