On March 2, 2011, after months of delay, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the free speech of the Westboro Baptist ”Church” (it’s truly difficult for me to use that word in connection with the Westboro group) is protected by the first amendment no matter how hateful or disruptive it is to their victims. Of the nine justices, only one dissented and sided with the families. Justice Samuel Alito, among other things, said “the majority's concern that the protest occurred in a public place should not be enough to "preclude" liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is no reason why a public street in close proximity to the scene of a funeral should be regarded as a free-fire zone where language that is not protected by the First Amendment is "shielded from liability." Alito went on to argue that "our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."
The other eight justices disagreed with Alito and, relying on prior case law, collectively said, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Indeed, the point of all speech protection ... is to shield just those choices of content that in someone's eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” The court also held that "insulting and even outrageous" speech must be tolerated "to provide adequate 'breathing space' to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment."
I suppose the logical, Constitution loving part of me understands this decision was probably the right one in legal terms. After all, freedom of speech is one of the greatest freedoms we have in this country. But does freedom of speech allow people to verbally attack grieving families and cause extreme emotional anguish on people who are already suffering, for the group’s own self gratification? Does it allow people to disrupt private family gatherings intended to say goodbye to a beloved son, daughter, father or mother who has made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, yes, even to protect that right for the likes of people like the Westboro Baptist Church? I guess the Supreme Court has decided the answer to those questions is a resounding “Yes!”
There are some who will say the Westboro group never really gets too close to the funeral itself however, in my opinion, they shouldn’t be able to get anywhere in the vicinity. There are other ways to voice their un-Godly beliefs (I don’t believe their doing the will of God but merely pushing their own agenda) without drawing attention by protesting a military funeral. Our military men and women are the ones who guarantee these hateful people have the right to voice their evil ideas in the first place. I guess they chose to overlook that part of it.
What happens now is only a guess but Albert Snyder, the father of Corporal Matthew Snyder, the Marine who’s funeral protest initiated the lawsuit, believes “people will start taking matters into their own hands and there will be bloodshed.” Mr. Snyder believes people will begin physically attacking the protesters who disrupt funerals with their vile hate speech. He says the blood will be on the hands of the Supreme Court Justices and while I’d love to agree with him on this one, violent response to Westboro will be the responsibility of those who take the actions, not the court. But I know what I would be feeling if those vile people showed up the funeral of my son and held up their disgusting, hateful signs.
I’d like to start an organization of concerned American citizens who would volunteer to attend any military funeral in their state, or area as each case permits, to shield the funeral and families from these evil, hateful people. I’ll have to research it and figure out how to go about it. Volunteers are needed. If you can help out, if you feel so compelled to protect our military families from the evils of the Westboro Baptist Hate Organization, please do. They normally advertise their planned protests to get as much attention as possible and military funerals are normally announced by the media. Let’s take the power away from Westboro and give it back to the families of our fallen heroes. These heroes deserve that much.
Is the Supreme Court decision "justice for all"? I'd say that's debatable.
While I see your point and agree that these people are doing something that is particularly distasteful, this is EXACTLY the kind of situation where the first amendment HAS to be upheld. Free speech is only free if the most unpopular versions of it are allowed. Other types of extremely unpopular free speech has been upheld. If we stop Westboro where does it end? Either free speech is free or it isn't. I honestly believe that the right to complain and criticize in this country is one of our most important rights and it isn't a "right" if everyone doesn't have it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we have to support free speech regardless, but I would like to see some type of restrictions placed on funerals. It is disrespectful to protest any funeral, but even more so when it is a military funeral. Obviously having just buried my only child after he was killed in action I would have been even more devastated had there been protestors there, but fortunately we saw none. These soldiers did NOT ask for the war (although they volunteered). They are merely following orders so honestly how a person can protest at a funeral as disrespectful as that is I just hope they can lay their heads down at night and be ok with ever doing so.
ReplyDelete