Rights v. Taste

Now, I know in this post-60s revolutionary iconoclastic world we live in today eschews any mention of the principle of "taste," but I feel, in light of recent events, that it is best to revisit this oft-forgotten concept. Taste is generally a very hard concept to define. First of all we have the knee-jerk reaction to negotiate it with the sensory process of gustation. However, I speak here of something more obscure.
Taste, as it applies to....hmmm...let's say the "social realm" generally involves some sort of list of likes and dislikes held in common with most of those around us. Some might call these "social mores" but it all comes back to an element of taste. What do we like or dislike?
The other concept mentioned in the Title may have somewhat of a more concrete meaning than taste. For us Americans, when we think of rights we generally refer to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and pertinent court cases. These sources outline what we can and cannot do while still abiding by the governing document of this nation. Some people also refer to innate "human rights." Although some definitions differ in the particulars, they can generally be summed up as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" courtesy of Tom Jefferson. These are our rights that should not be violated by our government or any of its officials, lest we cease, in essence, to be the United States of America.
Now, how the two concepts (rights and taste) complement one another is an entirely different matter. Rights are the basis of our republic (as I mentioned above), but what of taste? Is it merely a funny remnant of the Dark Ages? I move that it is not. Taste, rather, is the natural counterweight to rights.
Take, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church. This organization did at one point in time (not aware of their current status) protest funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming that the deaths were God's punishment for homosexuality in the U.S. Now, I am still angered at these actions and wouldn't mind taking a 2x4 to a few myself. The question remains, though, were these actions illegal or distasteful? The First Amendment seems to only flimsily state - "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." This broad and vague definition has been twisted by citizens and government officials to suit their purposes as the U.S. evolved. For example, the FCC regulates what can be said on the airwaves and Nazis can have marches. It works both ways. The question then comes to why is there such a gut reaction to a Nazi parade that makes us feel as if the sight of hatemongers in tan goosestepping down Main St. should be illegal. Clearly our 200 year old governing document says they have the right to "Heil Hitler!" 'til the cows come home, so why are we still offended? The answer lies in taste.
Taste tells us that Hitler junkies should not be proudly proclaiming their affiliation with the Nazi Party, nor should they be allowed to believe and promote such offensive ideologies in our towns and cities. In this way, I feel that a rebirth of taste will lead us to a more complete and true practice of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I know the historical angle is a bit overplayed, but I feel it is necessary to recall that the Founding Fathers fought for the Bill of Rights so that a true republic, clothed in liberty (sounds a little histrionic, but I'll go with it), could blossom forth. Freedom of speech was meant to defend patriots speaking out against corruption and tyrrany, not a snot-nosed kid flipping the bird to a police officer. But, without taste, that brat is equal to any Patrick Henry or Samuel Adams. It is for this reason that I earnestly hope for the return of taste to American society.