I just read with an incredible amount of distaste the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case against the Westboro Baptist Church (regarding their reprehensible “picketing” of United States Armed Services funerals). The court, while finding the actions of the “church” unconscionable, still recognizes the prejudiced bigots’ right to free speech.
This is in actuality a good thing. If you all think back to 1977, when there was proposed a march in Skokie, Illinois for the National Socialist Party of America, the court found even then that unpopular groups with racist views still have the right to gather and to speak publicly (more can be found here: Collin v. Smith: 1977 - Nazis Must Be Allowed To March, Suggestions For Further Reading). Our constitution guarantees them that right, and it’s a damn good thing it does. If it didn’t, these groups would be underground and more dangerous than they currently are as they would not be subject to public scrutiny.
While I agree in part with dissenting justice Alito, I still think the right thing to do here is let them speak. The constitution protects it (even though it is hate speech) and I would not want our rights eroded any further than our government has already done in the name of “security”. I know, I have always been outspoken concerning this congregation’s hateful rhetoric. It infuriates me that they are allowed to publicly display their hate – but it is one of the cornerstones of this country that they be allowed to.
I find the people who populate the congregation of the WBC to be callous, inconsiderate, bigoted individuals who have no business speaking out against anyone else. Their complete lack of compassion for their fellow Americans is not only sickening but disturbing. Yet, they do have a right to protest and display their hateful rhetoric, as much a right as the American Nazis had in Skokie Illinois in 1977.
As do the rest of us. I think a fabulous response to these WBC “protests” would be organized counter protests : whenever they come to YOUR town, let them know they’re not welcome by massing where they will be protesting and carrying your OWN signs. Or better still, maybe it’s time to organize a protest in Topeka, Kansas where the WBC can actually get a taste of its own medicine.
After all, this is America.
Photo courtesy of harbor88 on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40557496@N03/3917450738/
**Addendum 3/3/2011 - Torman has taken the counterpoint to this piece. I urge you all to go read it here (that's a link - the word "here").
My thanks to everyone who has read and contributed to this piece, and my thanks to Torman for posting an opposing viewpoint.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
iamsurly
Stacey Youdin
Lisa Solod
Damion Chaplin
Donna Carbone
Safe_Bet's Amy
Salon.com
Comments
OES - Isn't great though, that you can SAY Alito is a weasel?
itried - you said "just appalled by WBC and that the court chose to rule on a case that reinforces that civility, respect, manners, and dignity are a thing of the past". Well, what the ruling reinforced was that the fundamental right to free speech would stand even if that speech was reprehensible. I don't know where you got the "civility, respect, manners and dignity are a thing of the past" from - you should study up on your American history to see what kinds of speech have always been tolerated in this country.
bbd - I don't think the like of the WBC will be gleaning anything from MG and MLK; if anything, they'd probably find some way to twist those concepts promoted by these outstanding men of peace to fit into their own narrow antisocial views.
Jonathan - I've posted several times in the past about these miscreants, so I didn't even look to see if anyone else caught the ruling. But I'm grateful you did, too - the more people to write about this, the better. :-D
I'm appalled by the Supreme Court decision, but what do you expect from a group that considers a corporation a PERSON?
I believe in Free Speech, but there are limits to Free Speech such as defamation. A defendant in a defamation lawsuit may claim free speech protects his words. Free Speech, however, doesn't protect false or dangerous statements.
The WBC protesters were using anti-gay slurs against the deceased (and their families), without ANY knowledge of whether they were, in fact, gay.
Futhermore, their gripe wasn't even with the fallen service men (who had honorably served their country) or their families. If they had actually targeted gay men or women this way, they would be accused of hate crimes or hate speech.
I'm all for Free Speech, but not without reasonable limits on it such as defamation, etc.
They can claim legally that their ideology is not meant to inflict insult or personal injury on others and they are 100% right on that count. LEGALLY. If you check on some of the legal write-ups that have been done on this case, you'll find that they (like the American Nazis) can present their ideology without censorship.
Abhorrent? Certainly. But it's LEGAL. Quite frankly, much as I detest them I wouldn't have it any other way. Freedom means we have to allow for certain speech that is unpalatable to many of us. The antithesis of that is a distinctly sharp and slippery slope.
On a side note, not only actions Westboro's despicable; the very name of that group is appalling. To call them a "church" insults the meaning of that word. That they call themselves "Baptists" should sicken the vast majority of those who claim that name. As one who grew up in a Baptist church, I can say with absolute certainty that the Westboro group's hatred is anathema to the vast majority Baptists, not to mention Christians in general. Most Baptists may be opposed to abortion, but they do not spew completely unrelated hatred to those in mourning.
@iTried -- I rather have this settled quickly because others could have used the lower court decision to squelch free speech in areas that I might find near and dear to me.
But hate speech should never be repressed. We have to know who's who. Imagine if all the southern congressmen's private words had been made public the last 50 years. That would be priceless.
Dienne Anum - "First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me." Pastor Martin Niemoller.
We can allow them their rights under the constitution but ignoring them only gives them the courage to continue.
Harry - It could even be a Mastercard commercial. ;-D
Karen W - I've started several comments along those lines only to trash them. I find what was done to the Bush protesters as equally reprehensible. But it might in fact have set a legal precedent as I've never seen anything in the news about the government's response to the ACLU lawsuit over that.
Older/Exasperated - I can only hope that some kind of peaceful response is used again and again to show these people that they are a "church" in name only. I'd really like to see their tax exempt status revoked, but I also believe with all my heart that government should stay out of religion (and vice versa).
I would never wish violence upon another human being, but they must know that one day someone WILL go postal at one of their protests and it won't be pretty.
The SC got it right, as much as I hate to say it.
So if I set up huge speakers in the center of your city and broadcast my propaganda 24/7, you'd be cool with that?
Speech is entirely impendent on the power to do so.
Those who pay fealty to the BIG INVISIBLE BI-POLAR DADDY WHO LIVES IN THE SKY are given political and social power that those otherwise disposed do not have.
http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2011/03/02/fait-diver-matter-of-public-concern/
I don't know a lot about Alito, but this quote from his written opinion resonated with me, “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.”
Free speech- yes. But I do believe some parameters are in order, too.
you can ensure that you don't hear unpleasant things, simply by convincing the people of your community to join you in warning, imprisoning, or killing people who say 'hateful' things. ignorance has a price, though, and americans pay a high one, daily.
one price is the death and destruction the american military is bringing to iraq, and now to afghanistan. if these people cause you to think about that a little more deeply, perhaps these 'nutters' are not so crazy, after all.
So if I set up huge speakers in the center of your city and broadcast my propaganda 24/7, you'd be cool with that?
No, I didn't SAY that. I said what these people are using for propaganda IS protected by the first amendment. See, everything they say and do has to do with "God hates" or "God" this. Now, I don't know about what YOU'VE seen recently but I haven't seen anything in the media about G-d slapping these folks with a libel suit.
There are some (apparently) very narrow definitions of what is not protected as free speech, and these people apparently haven't hit those yet.
And I'll re-iterate, because y'all seem to be missing the point: I detest these people, I don't like the fact that they belong to the same species I do. But that does NOT preclude their right to speak or to protest no matter how much I disagree with them or dislike what they have to say.
David Ehrenstein said: "Freedom of Speech" is a myth.
Well, maybe in YOUR world it is. I can still say the president is an ass if I want to, and no one will come and arrest me for it.
chloe said: Free speech- yes. But I do believe some parameters are in order, too.
The problem becomes, chloe, who gets to decide what those parameters are and WHY DO THEY GET TO DECIDE? See, I don't like the message these people put out. But if we get to censor them, then what happens when someone doesn't like something I say no matter how truthful or rational it may be? Sorry, I don't want to go down that road. I'd rather have the protections that allow us as American citizens to speak out against our government if we so choose.
al loomis said: there is no such thing as 'freedom of speech.' people speak as they please only as long as the people around them are willing to listen. there is, therefore, a 'freedom to hear,' a freedom which can be defended by the community.
Well, al, that is kind of weird logic on your part. If there is no "freedom of speech" as you declare, then conversely there is no "freedom to hear". Since, without speech, there would be - uh - nothing to hear? Not to mention the fact that I do not advocate violence against these idiots (or any other idiots, for that matter). Why do you feel compelled to promote violence against them?
femme - Thanks. It gives me shooting pains in the head to actually have to agree with SCOTUS on this one, as you know how much I detest the WBC. I have always been a staunch supporter of gay rights and I have always supported our military (even when they are commanded to do things I disagree with). I will be forever grateful when all of our men and women in the armed services are back home where they belong. And I find it disgusting and deplorable that these so-called "church members" feel they can justify the defilements they perform at the funerals of those who have made the supreme sacrifice for country. But we have to afford even them the same rights as everyone else.
The thing is, just because one has a "right" to do something, does not make it right. Put yourself in the place of a grieving mother or father who is simply trying to bury their child. What would you do? I know what I would do; I would beat said protester to death with their freaking picket sign and then I would expect the Supreme court to uphold my right to "express my own beliefs."
I agree 1000%. I think it is within a locale's rights to enforce certain ordinances regarding protests (require a permit, restricted to certain areas, etc.). Maybe that's what needs doing in order to keep these asshats away. I'm not entirely sure I am comfortable with that, though. Every time I try to come up with some way to muzzle these people, I can think of twenty ways that it could be mis-used to muzzle EVERYONE.
I also agree that those who are burying a child (regardless of how old that child is) deserve the respect and privacy of their grief. Maybe it would be best if local governments enacted ordinances prohibiting protesting at funerals. Maybe even THAT is too heavy-handed.
I don't know the answer, quite frankly. I wish I did.
Just a thought. I don't think the Germans pre WWII thought hard enough or long enough about the hate speech that found its way in to their government. They paid a heavy price for it. They became what in many cases they detested and found it acceptable to support a Holocaust, as passively or as aggressively as it was done, the fact is it began with hate speech.
I find myself wanting to support freedom of speech unconditionally, but I am in a quandary about hate speech. Really.
"Maybe it would be best if local governments enacted ordinances prohibiting protesting at funerals. Maybe even THAT is too heavy-handed."
I've read Torman's post before coming here. I understand your adamance about protecting the right to one's principles and speaking out that belief, but I cannot understand this: too heavy handed for those whom you call asshats? yourself?
Where does common sense end and anarchy begin?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
As long as they are considered a religious group, they can say "God hates Jews" apparently. At the very least the government is prohibited from passing any laws against it. As they are prohibited from passing any law that will infringe on the ability to speak freely.
The founding fathers were pretty specific about not allowing government to inhibit the populace's right to assemble and to speak freely. Much as I hate what WBC says and does, I'm damn glad I can say what I want about it.
I reiterate - I do NOT condone what they say or what they do. I do respect their right to say it.
Bill: I understand your argument clearly. Where I part respectfully is when I don't respect them as citizens when they claim they are practicing such rights at the pain of others.
I'm glad I have the freedom to call them asshats - what happens when THAT is considered "hate speech"?
I don't necessarily disagree - you needn't respect them as citizens but you must respect their rights. Like it or not, they ARE in fact citizens, and as such enjoy the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. I really really hate to take the position of supporting their rights, but when you take the opposing position then where does it end? Who decides which groups are unacceptable and as such fair game to have their rights truncated like that? I re-iterate, if Nazis could march in Skokie Illinois in 21977 (and through a Jewish neighborhood, no less) then we must afford even these people their constitutional right to free speech. It is a fundamental right of free people.
Connie, I couldn't agree more. Media attention should really go to more important issues, not vitriolic theater.
Now, it seems to ME that if they (the Supreme Court) can claim that Native Americans do not have First Amendment Rights based ONLY on the RACE of the people involved... they (the Supreme Court) have already crossed that "line in the sand" that people are so worried about...