In the last few days, a Michigan court ruled such that Terry Jones is barred from visiting the vicinity of a mosque for three years, after his attempt to peaceably protest jihad and sharia outside of the mosque on public property. By extension, then, anyone is also prohibited from doing so.
So, this court says, in essence, yes, the Constitution does say that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech . . . "; however, a court in the state of Michigan can, by decision, abridge such speech if it deems it to be offensive to some group.
Two implications arise from this ruling: First, in Michigan, the individual's right to the freedom of speech recognized by and protected under the U.S. Constitution will not be recognized and protected by the courts in Michigan. Rather, in Michigan the individual is only permitted to speak if it doesn't offend some group. Now, it's one group's "rights" versus another group's "rights."
Secondly, In any conflict of words or demonstrations between two groups, which group gets their "rights" protected? Simple: the group which issues death threats in the face of their opposition.
So now, it's group versus group, and may the biggest thug win. Great ruling. As a culture, if we ever rediscover reason, may this judge get what he deserves.