Or acceptable by any reasonable standard. The targeting of children to advance your particular political agenda is not free speech. It is not your first amendment right. It is terrorism and should be treated as such by the courts. Gateway Pundit has some examples of groups that think targeting children is acceptable.
The group, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, maintained its actions were protected under the First Amendment.
The government charged that SHAC waged a five-year campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences, posting on its Web site information about the lab's employees and those who do business with Huntingdon, including their home phone numbers, addresses and where their children attended school.
Many of those people saw their homes vandalized, and they and their families received threatening e-mails, faxes and phone calls. Many were also besieged by protesters parading with photos of mutilated animals and screaming "Puppy killer!" through megaphones at all hours outside their homes.
One woman said she received an e-mail threatening to cut her 7-year-old son open and stuff him with poison.
A man said he was showered with glass as people smashed all the windows of his home and overturned his wife's car.
Read the rest.
The angry left, which is currently imploding over at Daily Kos.
As Glenn would say:
Heh
Indeed
David Horowitz has advocated the same thing for New York Times personnel.
It’s not a right-wing thing or a left-wing thing, it’s an extremist thing.