Posted on 03/13/2011 7:46:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
In America, it's easy to take freedom speech for granted. After all, for citizens of the United States, free speech is a birthright, an ideal deeply woven into the fabric of society and culture. Sometimes, however, our ideals come into conflict with reality, and our convictions are put to the test. When a cherished liberty is exploited for a dubious purpose, do the perpetrators of that exploitation retain the right to exercise that liberty, or should the right be circumscribed "for the greater good?"
The US Supreme Court answered this question last week with its ruling that the anti-military, anti-gay protest activities of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) are protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. This was not welcome news for those who believe that something should be done to protect grieving families of fallen soldiers from the vitriol of a lunatic "pastor" and his overzealous followers. As disgusting and offensive as WBC's conduct is, however, the general consensus among legal experts and pundits on the Left and Right is that the Supreme Court made the right decision. Chief Justice John Roberts took pains to articulate why the Court came down on the side of the protestors in this case:
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."
Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues are absolutely correct here. The blessings of living in a free society come with the unavoidable consequences of that freedom: inevitably, misguided – and sometimes evil – people will use that freedom to spew hateful, hurtful speech. Yet, as much as we may wish to use the force of law to impose civility on public discourse, it is not the government's job to police the thoughts and words of its citizens.
This is the animating principle behind opposition to hate crime legislation. Regardless of how this emotionally-charged debate might be portrayed in the media, the primary objection of critics of "hate crimes" is that such laws essentially criminalize thought or attitudes. In a society based in the rule of law, it is legitimate to punish a person when their conduct violates the life, liberty, or property of another. It is not legitimate, however, to punish that same person more severely if their crime was motivated by an unpopular or abhorrent ideology. Actions, not attitudes, are the proper province of government regulation.
As Chief Justice Roberts observed, hate speech can stir powerful emotions in us, prompting a desire for justice that clouds our ability to appreciate the higher principles involved. In a political and cultural atmosphere that becomes more and more contentious every day however, it is critical that we remain firm in our allegiance to the values that America was founded on. Unlike many other parts of the world – where open criticism of the predominant religion or reigning despot is likely to land a person in prison or worse – America is a land that has always stood as a bastion of liberty and a model of the democratic process in action. If a person or a group says something we don't like, we don't issue death threats, or take to the streets in violent protest, or lobby the state to crack down on our enemies. That's just not the American way.
The American Legion's response to the Westboro Baptist Church's offensive activities is a perfect example of the American way in action. For six years, the Patriot Guard Riders have stood vigil at military funerals, acting as guardians for the fallen and their families and minimizing their exposure to the hateful protesters lining the funeral routes. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, the Legion has pledged to continue this work for as long as they are needed. Try as they might to garner attention with their hateful words, the Westboro Baptist Church's message will never resonate as loud as the message being sent by the Patriot Guard Riders. That is what makes America a great nation.
The Tea Party should organize HUGE groups everywhere WBC goes to protest. The Tea Party group (or other conservative/ AMERICAN group) should surround the WBC dingbats and start singing hymns as loud as they can, like Amazing Grace, or some patriotic songs... as the funeral procession goes by.
After a few of these confrontations, I believe the WBC members will not be able to accomplish their goals and may stop . Also, the patriotic groups should go to the homes of the WBC members, and do the same, like at 3:am or go to the “church” and start disrupting the service, by standing up and singing patriotic songs.
Could be fun !
Sarah did NOT disagree with this decision. She only thinks that you should ALSO be allowed to mention GOD or Jesus in the “town square” without fear.
She thinks that also is free speech.
I agree with her.
Agreed. Westboro can and should have the right to stand in the city square or in front of any government building and protest or demonstrate. Free speech IMHO was intended to ensure citizens could verbally shake their fists at the government without fear of retribution.
As you said, Westboro only intends to bully the grieving mourners of the dead to no point.
I’ve proudly ridden several PGR missions but never had any encounters with protesters.
I don't know if any gay groups took part in any of this. Aside from the signs, Phelps pretty much leaves gays alone. If memory serves me right, Phelps and his gang used to protest at gay pride festivals and the funerals of AIDS victims. For whatever reason they've now focused their attention away from these type of events.
And, yes, Mr. Snyder is looking at a possible $100,000 bill. I thought I read somewhere that Bill O'Reilly has offered to pay it.
Maybe you should organize it instead of telling others to do it?
Look, I’m a huge fan of Sarah, but I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. She came out and said the decision was wrong - that the constitution did not protect what this church did there.
No, she didn’t. And she clarified for those who misread what she first said.
Thankfully, and unlike the majority of FReepers on this thread, the Supreme Court doesn’t operate on emotionalism.
After posing that question, I decided to check the SCOTUS docket on the Snyder/Phelps case to see who’d filed amicus briefs. Good ole ACLU was there, a few with names that seemed to focus on the 1st Amendment, and a few with totally obscure names. But I didn’t see any obvious GLAD-types.
I read in the WaPo story about the ruling that the lawyer-daughter said they would increase protests, and look at challenging local/state laws restricting their protests, but Roberts pretty well covered that in his Opinion.
This will end when everyone, press in particular, stops paying attention to them. Just bring out the Patriot Guard to block their visibility, give them no coverage whatsoever, and it’s back to Topeka.
I remember O’Reilly saying he’d cover Snyder on the legal bills, so he gets kudo’s for that. If the legal bill to go through the District Court, Court of Appeals and SCOTUS is only $100K, they’re charging Topeka lawyer rates. Just printing those SCOTUS briefs runs thousands of dollars each.
The homosexuals like Westboro because they’re the perfect poster child for “lunatic christians.” Every time they go out there they damage the reputation of all Christians.
The 1st Amendment means there is no prior restraint on speech. It does not mean the government has an obligation to provide personnel to protect individuals who go out and deliberately provoke other people by making insane attacks. The recent incident where Westboro went to picket the funerals of seven children who were killed in a fire is illustrative. There is no coherent reason for them to be there.
I fear we have reached a point where insanity is the only protected form of speech.
or should the ruling be based on what is stated in the Constitution?
The 1st amendment is as clearly stated as is the 2nd amendment.
Does anyone seriously see the Phelpses as a “church” or as “Christians?”
Tho they do fit the left’s stereotype for conservative Christians, except for the wearing shoes part ;)
I'd call it inciting a riot.
I’m not sure why this even made it to the USSC. What they are doing should already be covered by ‘fighting words’ and is not legal speech.
You nailed it. As vile as the WBC is, this is a huge victory for the right, especially when combating Islam. What the SCOTUS did here was basically say there was no such thing as hate speech.
The protesters drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.
Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that assailed Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son."
Supreme Court: Raucous Funeral Picketers Allowed
In reading this, a couple of things stand out.
1. The protesters obeyed the police and kept their distance from the Church.
2. The route of the funeral procession was altered. My impression was that Mr.Snyder did not see the protesters or the counter protesters.
3. Several weeks later, Mr. Snyder came upon an offensive poem on the internet. Again, my impression is that Mr. Snyder was not suing over the presence of the protesters at the funeral, but was instead, suing over an offensive poem.
God bless and comfort Mr. Snyder. The Westboro Baptists can burn in hell. But I don't see how FReepers would have wanted this case to be decided otherwise. In time, a decision like this would give fearsome ability to liberals to hammer conservatives for speech they find offensive.
Was not the whole issue whether or not the actions of the Westboro Church constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress, a concept I heard one legal expert say goes back to colonial days?
I really don't understand how this has anything to do with the first admendment. As another poster pointed out, the verbal attack was directed not at a group or some political concept or practice but directly at the dead man's parents. The "fighting words" doctrine has limited free speech for decades. Were these not words "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace?"
It seems to me that Synder's better course would have been to get out of his limo and kicked the ass of every one of the protesters right on the spot. He would have gotten a hell of a lot more pleasure out of the process than the court has given him, without much additional cost in money than he now owes.
Absolutely right. I don’t understand how anyone can not grasp that. A decision that prohibited this kind of nonsense, would quickly lead us down the road to Canadian-style suppression of speech.
Which, in the face of the incredible restrictions currently in place in Canada, for example, is a GOOD thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.