- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
This is by a friend of mine.....of which I totally agree!!
A lot of free speech advocates have praised the Supreme Court's recent decision in Snyder v. Westboro Baptist Church. They've argued that this strengthens free speech protection, and that's inarguable. However, they also argue that the direction in which it has been strengthened is a positive one. On that point, I respectfully disagree.
Now, most of the people reading this know me as a strong free speech advocate, and as a strong supporter of increased free speech protection. That's why many of you may be surprised to know that I was appalled by this ruling. So to explain why I think this ruling was just as batshit crazy as the Supremes' recent ruling on campaign finance, I felt it would be worth explaining why Westboro's speech should not be considered constitutionally protected speech, and also describing the fallout that a broad interpretation of this ruling would cause.
First, there's the question of whether this is inherently protected speech to begin with. To that end, the answer is yes, but with a caveat. Their speech is protected. Their right to speak at that place and time is not. The courts have long since recognized the need for narrowly defined time, place, and manner restrictions on speech (for example, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). Banning protests at funerals is not any different. Although a law probably could not ban protests at a cemetery outright, a law banning protests before, during, and after an actual funeral in a cemetery would be prima facie constitutionally sound. Therefore, we should start by dispensing with the false notion that what Westboro is doing constitutes clearly protected free speech behavior. That simply isn't the case.
But the problems go much deeper than that. These protests represent direct interference with someone else's first amendment rights. You see, the first amendment does more than just protect free speech. It also protects the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. In effect, this decision means that the government has sanctioned interference with that basic constitutional right.
On the flip side, that works both ways. Thus, if protesters decided to form a blockade that prevents members of Westboro from attending services, they would now have that constitutional right. I would argue that neither of these sorts of behaviors should be allowed, but since the courts have said that they are, it sounds like a reasonable approach to me. After all, why should they have the right to the free exercise of their religion while denying others that same right?
Also, this decision seriously damages harassment laws (what these people do clearly qualifies) in a way that is harmful to the basic functioning of a civilized society. If what Westboro does is protected speech, what about sexual harassment? Is there really such a bright line difference between what they do and calling up a girl you don't know and telling her what you would do with her if she came to your bedroom? Where do we draw the line? Historically, we drew the line when it caused serious psychological harm to the victim. Well, apparently that isn't good enough anymore. So ladies, if you don't want to be harassed, the Supreme Court basically just said that your only alternative is to shoot the person harassing you and plead temporary insanity. Enjoy your dystopia.
On the flip side, the court case also means that we have a legal right to make harassing phone calls to Westboro Baptist Church without fear of reprisal. Here's a convenient list of phone numbers (unless they have changed them since then):
http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/westboro-baptist-church-telephone-numbers/
Notice that I am not telling you to harass them. I am merely saying that it might be allowed and implying that I think it would be a good first step... which brings me to my last pointthat of the implications of a Westboro protest at a funeral.
Historically, Westboro protested at the funeral of soldiers who they believed to be homosexuals. Now I'm not saying that being gay is wrong, but in the minds of many people, it is. More to the point, in many communities, being accused of having a gay child could harm your social standing regardless of your own personal opinion on homosexuality. That's simply stating an unfortunate fact of the world in which we live. This means that if the dead soldier happens to be straight (as Snyder's son was), one could legitimately argue that their protest constitutes implicit defamationboth defamation of their son and of the parents.
Now defamation is clearly not constitutionally protected. Normally, you would have to prove actual malice, but in the case of private citizens, you must merely prove that the claim was wrong. Clearly, mere membership in our armed forces should not remove one's right to be treated as a private citizen. Thus, Westboro's speech is prima facie unprotected speech. Except that now, it is protected. Under this ruling, as long as I only hint that you are a sick pedophile, zoophile, sociopath who enjoys sexual games involving bathtubs filled with hot grits, rather than saying it outright, you can't sue me for it even though it just cost you that promotion at work. Sorry. Sucks to be you.
In effect, this court ruling substantively undermines several sets of basic constitutional rights solely to give a bunch of whack jobs stronger free speech protection, and that's just not a balance that makes sense to me. Your free speech rights end when they cause clear harm, and these people cause clear harm every time they protest. They are abusive monsters. Unfortunately, our Supreme Court justices do not understand that, and are protecting what is clearly well outside the bounds of acceptable behavior. Here's hoping that if any of their kids die, Westboro protests at those funerals. The justices of the Supreme Court deserve nothing less.
As for Westboro, I have a feeling that when God judges them, they're going to be very surprised. And I can't wait to see the funeral of Pastor Fred Phelps, if only because when he dies, half of America will be protesting at his funeral. It might even set world records. Oh, and I'd expect his gravesite to smell of human bodily fluids for decades to come, but when his kids file lawsuits against the people urinating on his grave, I trust that the courts will tell them, "Sucks to be you."
A lot of free speech advocates have praised the Supreme Court's recent decision in Snyder v. Westboro Baptist Church. They've argued that this strengthens free speech protection, and that's inarguable. However, they also argue that the direction in which it has been strengthened is a positive one. On that point, I respectfully disagree.
Now, most of the people reading this know me as a strong free speech advocate, and as a strong supporter of increased free speech protection. That's why many of you may be surprised to know that I was appalled by this ruling. So to explain why I think this ruling was just as batshit crazy as the Supremes' recent ruling on campaign finance, I felt it would be worth explaining why Westboro's speech should not be considered constitutionally protected speech, and also describing the fallout that a broad interpretation of this ruling would cause.
First, there's the question of whether this is inherently protected speech to begin with. To that end, the answer is yes, but with a caveat. Their speech is protected. Their right to speak at that place and time is not. The courts have long since recognized the need for narrowly defined time, place, and manner restrictions on speech (for example, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). Banning protests at funerals is not any different. Although a law probably could not ban protests at a cemetery outright, a law banning protests before, during, and after an actual funeral in a cemetery would be prima facie constitutionally sound. Therefore, we should start by dispensing with the false notion that what Westboro is doing constitutes clearly protected free speech behavior. That simply isn't the case.
But the problems go much deeper than that. These protests represent direct interference with someone else's first amendment rights. You see, the first amendment does more than just protect free speech. It also protects the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. In effect, this decision means that the government has sanctioned interference with that basic constitutional right.
On the flip side, that works both ways. Thus, if protesters decided to form a blockade that prevents members of Westboro from attending services, they would now have that constitutional right. I would argue that neither of these sorts of behaviors should be allowed, but since the courts have said that they are, it sounds like a reasonable approach to me. After all, why should they have the right to the free exercise of their religion while denying others that same right?
Also, this decision seriously damages harassment laws (what these people do clearly qualifies) in a way that is harmful to the basic functioning of a civilized society. If what Westboro does is protected speech, what about sexual harassment? Is there really such a bright line difference between what they do and calling up a girl you don't know and telling her what you would do with her if she came to your bedroom? Where do we draw the line? Historically, we drew the line when it caused serious psychological harm to the victim. Well, apparently that isn't good enough anymore. So ladies, if you don't want to be harassed, the Supreme Court basically just said that your only alternative is to shoot the person harassing you and plead temporary insanity. Enjoy your dystopia.
On the flip side, the court case also means that we have a legal right to make harassing phone calls to Westboro Baptist Church without fear of reprisal. Here's a convenient list of phone numbers (unless they have changed them since then):
http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/westboro-baptist-church-telephone-numbers/
Notice that I am not telling you to harass them. I am merely saying that it might be allowed and implying that I think it would be a good first step... which brings me to my last pointthat of the implications of a Westboro protest at a funeral.
Historically, Westboro protested at the funeral of soldiers who they believed to be homosexuals. Now I'm not saying that being gay is wrong, but in the minds of many people, it is. More to the point, in many communities, being accused of having a gay child could harm your social standing regardless of your own personal opinion on homosexuality. That's simply stating an unfortunate fact of the world in which we live. This means that if the dead soldier happens to be straight (as Snyder's son was), one could legitimately argue that their protest constitutes implicit defamationboth defamation of their son and of the parents.
Now defamation is clearly not constitutionally protected. Normally, you would have to prove actual malice, but in the case of private citizens, you must merely prove that the claim was wrong. Clearly, mere membership in our armed forces should not remove one's right to be treated as a private citizen. Thus, Westboro's speech is prima facie unprotected speech. Except that now, it is protected. Under this ruling, as long as I only hint that you are a sick pedophile, zoophile, sociopath who enjoys sexual games involving bathtubs filled with hot grits, rather than saying it outright, you can't sue me for it even though it just cost you that promotion at work. Sorry. Sucks to be you.
In effect, this court ruling substantively undermines several sets of basic constitutional rights solely to give a bunch of whack jobs stronger free speech protection, and that's just not a balance that makes sense to me. Your free speech rights end when they cause clear harm, and these people cause clear harm every time they protest. They are abusive monsters. Unfortunately, our Supreme Court justices do not understand that, and are protecting what is clearly well outside the bounds of acceptable behavior. Here's hoping that if any of their kids die, Westboro protests at those funerals. The justices of the Supreme Court deserve nothing less.
As for Westboro, I have a feeling that when God judges them, they're going to be very surprised. And I can't wait to see the funeral of Pastor Fred Phelps, if only because when he dies, half of America will be protesting at his funeral. It might even set world records. Oh, and I'd expect his gravesite to smell of human bodily fluids for decades to come, but when his kids file lawsuits against the people urinating on his grave, I trust that the courts will tell them, "Sucks to be you."
, i guess you missed my point. My point was about 21st century idea's and ideals being hog tied by a line of thinking that is 200 years old.
Facebook
Twitter