Phelps v. U.S. case decision Vampirism- the alternate lifestyle based on the modern perception of vampires. A form of active vampirism is known as sanguinary vampirism where people who consider themselves as “real vampires” consume human blood voluntarily donated from people. Their logic behind this? Feeding off human blood makes up for a deficiency of proper energy processing throughout their bodies. Most outsiders find that this extreme practice of religion should be banned. But, thanks to the First Amendment, it is protected. You see, to allow something is not the same as to condone it or agree with it. Do I agree with the ways of those who believe in vampirism? No. But because of the First Amendment we must allow it. So, let me ask this: If a practice of religion such as vampirism is allowed in today’s society, then why shouldn’t Fred Phelps’ practice of religion be allowed? According to the constitution, we are given the natural right to be a part of whatever religion we choose or no religion whatsoever. So for me to say that just because I don’t agree something it needs to be banned seems a little extreme am I wrong? This is why I rule in favor of the Phelps family. “…What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires; is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean that we approve of it.” This was said by junior United States senator of Kentucky, Randall Howard or also known as Rand Paul. Limiting speech is what helps keep this country out of total chaos. On the flipside however, the more speech we limit, the more chaos will be caused. In the Texas v. Johnson case it is apparent that if limitations don’t stop, then freedom of speech will no longer exist. Also, just like in the Texas case, Fred Phelps and his family are not causing any violence. Some find the protest offensive, yet no physical damage is being done. In the Skokie case, it is stated that “under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea.” This means that even a controversial subject still deserves every right that should be given to them. If a precedent is set, then no matter the circumstance it must be followed for every group. There are ideas we all have, but there are no wrong opinions. If we begin to limit these ideas and opinions, then we would no longer have a purpose for the First Amendment. In the N.A.R.A. case Favish is granted some but