March 2, 2011
-
Freedom of Speech? Really?
So you all may have heard about the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church being allowed to continue to hold their insidious protests at funerals (mostly at military funerals). The ruling was 8-1. Samuel Alito, arguably one of the most conservative justices on the Court, was the lone dissenter.
My heart most definitely breaks for the families that have or will have these people protest at their family members’ funerals (that cannot be easy) but I believe deeply in the right to protest. I do believe that that freedom to say what you want to say should be protected. And therefore I agree with the Supreme Court ruling.
I also reserve my right to freedom of speech to say that the protesters are a little cray-cray (okay, a lot cray-cray and maybe even batsh*t crazy). Isn’t it awesome how this ruling works both ways?
People have the right to say whatever they want to say even if we don’t like it. A good rule of thumb is that if you don’t like what someone has to say, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from not listening. In the case of the families at the funerals where Westboro has protested, I totally understand how difficult it would be to “tune out” the protesters even if the protests are really only serving to make the protesters look dumb. I’m hopeful that the protesters will eventually give up their craziness but unfortunately, I don’t really see that happening.
What do you think about this ruling?
Comments (58)
I sincerely wish the communities in which these protests take place would band together to ensure that the families see as little as possible of the WBC crap as possible. Buy a roll of weedblock, put on your Sunday best, and go out to protest on the fence side of the cemetery, blocking the grieving family’s view of the WBC with a SILENT, RESPECTFUL wall of black weedblock. It’s a cheap and easy way to get back at the little hate mongers.
As little as I like the WBC… as hateful as I find them to be… I can’t be mad at the ruling. I do, however, think the families enduring those protests on one of the saddest days they will ever know should be the recipients of generous awards for emotional distress. Heh.
I don’t know enough about it to make a full assessment, but… I see it two ways: yes, we have freedom of speech and that is a blessing. But when that “freedom” is being used to hurt others (because, whether or not what they’re saying is warranted – picketing at a funeral is downright mean and disrespectful) – then I disagree. Granted, you can’t please everyone – but do you have to do it at someone’s FUNERAL? That’s what galls me!
Basically when one of the WB people die, we can now protest at their funeral without them saying anything about it…if they do, it will overturn the decision in their favor if anyone sides with them…so…now all we have to do is play the waiting game…
honestly, that’s a dumb idea, but its one way to get them to open their eyes to how ridiculous it is to protest at a funeral.
um terrible behaviour. Have some respect, no one will take them seriously if they have to stoop that low to make a point. Ugly stuff!!
@i_am_not_short - That’s hilarious.
There’s gotta be some limits to free speech but then who decides what those limits are? That group is absolutely bizarre and border on lunacy.
Ideally I wish they could restrict them to be located further away from the places where they protest. I guess that can’t happen, so hopefully other folks will make their presence known and counter their totally uncalled for, but protected, behavior. They do not represent the Jesus I know in the slightest. Very sad.
I also agree with the ruling, for the same reason.
This ruling is perfectly fine and I’m shocked that Justice Alito didn’t join his peers. There are plenty of constitutionally acceptable laws in place to restrict the protesters – for example, in the case at hand they had to be something like 1000 feet from the funeral, which is a significant distance – and I think that those laws offer sufficient protection to those who would be hurt by the speech.
@i_was_there_and_back_again - Actually, such restrictions can be put in place. State and local jurisdictions are free to put limits on how close the protesters are to the funerals. The justices noted that those local laws are perfectly constitutional.
@ElusiveWords - It would seem that the Supreme Court is the one who decides on what those limits are.
I also agree with your post. It is ugly, the way those folks are protesting, but I would not want to see anyone’s right to free speech taken away for fear others’ would follow. I feel the right to free speech is far more important. I do like the idea of state and local gov’t passing laws to keep the protesters at a certain distance. I also encourage folks to make it known they will be there to stand between the protesters and the funeral attendees. Sometimes that alone has been enough for the protesters not to show up.
I think I’d like to do what a friend of mine did and go to working part-time only. Then I could attend some of these funerals and counter-protest, which for me would mean holding up signs of support for the brave men and women who fight for our country, regardless of whether I agree with the war.
I agree with the ruling and your reasons.
What’s to stop a counter protest? Only lack of interest on the part of the public.
A Court ruling banning Westboro would also cripple protest in the other direction.
And that would strike a mortal blow to freedom of speech.
A lot of consistency here. The ruling was consistent with law and precedent. The protesters are acting consistent with the mores and norms of the lower dregs of society.
I know that many people will disagree, but I think freedom of speech is scary sometimes. When you have a large group of people saying extreme things like the Westboro Baptist Church, it’s frightening…
I also think that even ONE guy “saying” something threatening is very scary…
I think protesting a funeral should be illegal. Anyone who has a sign or graphic t-shirt within the funeral’s grounds should be arrested and charged with something along the lines of harassment.
I don’t think freedom of speech should be allowed to piss on a funeral. Do we have no god damn dignity towards our dead? Respect?! Come on people.
Freedom of speech is not without consequences, and making it illegal to PROTEST at a FUNERAL is not being ridiculous or unreasonable. I think it’s ridiculous and unreasonable to allow these people to desecrate someone/someone’s family member on the day of mourning of their death.
I’m pretty disgusted with the ruling. Freedom of speech is all fine and dandy, but protesting a funeral is just cruel and unnecessary. The family and friends of the deceased already have enough on their minds without having to deal with a bunch of preaching crazies.
It’s amazing how the Westboro Church is allowed to even continue. They’re not a church, they’re a hate group. I guess if any jackass tosses in the words “God” and “church,” it’s automatically okay.
I think that the ruling was correct. I may not agree with what you say, but I support your right to say it. To all those that don’t agree….sorry but ‘dems the brakes. If only what they do could be considered slander right?
As a person that has actually been to a counter-protest of the WBC when they came here to SC, there as plenty of ways to dishearten them in their efforts. What happened here was pretty hilarious actually, they were supposed to begin their protest at 3:00pm 1000 feet from a local high school near my home on a street corner. So, people started showing up like 1pm, set up and occupied every public street corner within 5000 ft from the school.
So when the WBC arrived (with their police escort) they noticed that the area they had planned on setting up was already taken. When they saw how far away they were going to have to be, they decided it wasn’t worth their effort and left.
It was quite funny watching them complain to the cops that their spot was taken.
@Automaton_Emotion - I love your idea about weedblock. I’m tempted to get some. I know the church has protested here in DC a few times. I think it would be a good investment for me to get some just to have on hand.
@Passionflwr86 - @the_rocking_of_socks - I totally see where you’re coming from but maintain that freedom of speech should be maintained. It is mean and definitely disrespectful for the church to protest funerals for sure. The issue then becomes where you draw the lines for protesting, which I believe could be quite slippery. Is it ever okay to protest then? My mind is drawn to a lot of the protests that I see around here. Some of the groups protest peacefully with signs that actually discuss what they are upset about (they’re topical). Other protests have signs that can be construed as being hateful messages towards a particular person, in many cases here, that person is a politician, which then brings up the thought as to whether or not it’s okay to protest public citizens but not private citizens, which then brings up the thought as to who is considered a private citizen. It could get messy quickly.
The other thing to consider is that Westboro’s rhetoric is a little off kilter. Their whole thing is that one thing happened (a soldier being killed, someone dying of cancer, etc.) because our country tolerates something else (basic human rights for all regardless of sexual orientation). It’s a ridiculous argument imho and hopefully the families of the deceased recognize that. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruling also means that we have the ability to engage in counter protests, something that I would not want to give up.
@i_am_not_short - @Uek - Now we just need to come up with some crazy thing to protest at their funerals. I bet we can make prettier signs than they have. I’m thinking soft shades of greens and blues.
@TheGhioniFiles -@ElusiveWords - The fact that they stoop to such a level is exactly why I am not worried about some of the crazy that they spew out. Their rhetoric does not make a lick of sense!
@i_was_there_and_back_again - Like Chris said, I do believe it’s possible for states and towns to make their laws to where protesting would have to be further away. The issue is that the laws would obviously have to be the same for the healthier kind of protesting as well. Although, it still may be worth it to change the laws!
@randaness - Thanks for stopping by!
@christao408 - I was pretty surprised as well when I found out that Justice Alito was the lone dissenter. It would be interesting to see what he had to say about his reasons for the dissention. I understand that hurtful language is hard to hear and I do feel bad for the families but I also think it’s important to maintain freedom of speech.
@everyday_yogi - @BoureeMusique - Not sure if you guys saw A/E’s comment above (first one) about getting sheets of weedblock to hide the protesters. I thought it was brilliant! It would be nice to see counter-protesters out at the funerals being protested which would give more support to the families of the deceased!
@methodElevated - Thanks for stopping by!
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Definitely. You can’t have things both ways. I do believe that there are cases where protests are sometimes a good thing. I’d rather retain that right to protest.
@ItsWhatEyeKnow - For sure. I would have been quite shocked had the ruling gone the other way.
@Winsa - I think there’s a big difference between saying something extreme and saying something threatening. That line can definitely be blurry sometime but it is an apparent line. Westboro’s rhetoric is simply this: they are declaring something happened (a person’s death) because of something else (tolerance for gays). Even as crazy as that rhetoric sounds, they aren’t threatening anyone. If they said they were going to harm a person because of what’s going on, that’s threatening and there’s legal action that could be taken.
@haloed - I do see where you are coming from but I think the situation would be better dealt with by towns and states lengthening the distance away that protesters need to be away from the funerals. I would argue that Westboro, while hurtful, is not dangerous. Their rhetoric is insane.
@Happily_Married_Man - I love that the town was able to band together in a sort of counter-protest. I think that would be a lot more fruitful in this situation.
As much as it’s painful and disgusting, the Supreme Court got it right. If it had ruled the other way, then it would have been the start of a very slippery slope.
Counter-protests are the only way to deal with the insanity of the members of the WBC. Block them out; they’ll move on eventually.
I support the decision even though I don’t like WBC’s message or tactics. I wish WBC would realize that they also have the right to stop being assholes and exercise that one regularly.
@i_am_not_short - I think it would be a much better idea not to acknowledge their death at all. They don’t protest for their beliefs, they protest for publicity. No reason to give them more of that even after they die.
The answer to offensive speech is not to negate the First Ammendment. The answer is MORE SPEECH! Yes, go out there to those funerals, as people did for that little girl’s who was shot with Abbie Giffords. Go to those funerals and shield the family from the protestors with a human chain. When hateful letters to the editor are published in your local paper, you write one that reminds people that hate doesn’t work. Only love and respect work. And so forth and so on. Does no good to try to shout each other down. But it does help to speak up.
Yes I agree with the decision too. I honestly don’t see that they could have decided any other way.
I agree that the Supreme Court got it right.
Now if only more people would actually gather to protest the Westboro Baptist Church, people would really be getting it right.
I agree with Freedom of Speech. However, isn’t there a privacy act of some sort in the States? And aren’t family funerals private affairs? You don’t have to deny someone freedom of speech, but you also don’t have to deny someone the right to privacy and ESPECIALLY a pricate funeral either. There needs to be some sort of rule as to what can be protested and how.
Because as far as I can tell, this isn’t protesting, this is harassment.
I don’t pretend to understand the legal precedents that they considered, so it may have been the best decision given the way laws are written. However, I don’t really see any logical justification. Freedom of Religion has also been interpreted to include some right of Freedom From Religion, hence there is no reason why Freedom of Speech does not also entail a corresponding right to Freedom From Speech. There are slippery slopes all around. Sticking our heads in the sand doesn’t make them go away.
There is such a thing as incendiary speech. Given the stress of losing a loved one, sooner or later, someone grieving is going to be driven over the edge by a wacko protestor. What court will really want to prosecute them? The state has a responsibility to maintain order. That includes warning stupid morons to not unnecessarily pick fights. I cannot imagine any circumstance where someone actually needs to protest a funeral whether at a church, funeral home, or graveside. This is not real protest. This is obnoxious grandstanding. I’d arrest Greenpeace protestors when they endanger their own lives or wackos who dangle off of high buildings or bridges to get the attention of people. There is a time and place to say everything. Funerals are the time to remember lives well lived and make peace. They are not the time to stir up arguments and fight.
It’s nice if people are willing to hold counterprotests. But it shouldn’t be necessary.
BTW if you disagree with my opinions, you may ignore them or delete them. If you feel strongly you may block me from your site. If you felt really strongly you could tell your friends to block me from their sites. I like that freedom. That is a form of freedom From speech. It is healthy. I’d hate to see someone argue that the web will create insular communities of like minded people if we allow people to delete comments or block people — that somehow this violates their freedom of speech. So let’s let the grieving block people from visiting their private/personal (non-cyber) sites too. Let the dead bury their dead. Let them rest in peace.
@i_am_not_short - I don’t think there’s really a point to protest their funerals. I mean, yeah they’re assholes to the 9th degree, but when they protest they say that the solider is going to hell. They believe that they too will go to Hell. I’ve read and watched a lot of interviews with different members and they all say the same thing, “I’ll probably be in hell.” So going to their funerals with signs like “You’re going to HELL” probably won’t effect them too much. And that’s IF they hold a funeral. They seem to look at funerals as “worshiping the dead” which is a violation of the 2nd commandment in Exodus.
We can always ALWAYS counter protest their protests. There’s counter protests at universities, music concerts, ComicCon, the Superbowl. At funerals, I’d really like to see a bunch of people follow them around with giant black signs, that block them from the view of the mourning families. A giant IRL censor block
@ViveFLIP - There’s a certain distance you have to be if you’re protesting a funeral and the WBC is very careful about following those guidelines. I think it’s somewhere around 300 ft in a few states.
@tgwiy - ohhhh okay. still sucks for the family though. It would be nice if they could keep them away from the funeral, and it just reeks of uncaring. They’re a church group, I wish they had compassion and allowed the families their space.
@ViveFLIP - They’re a pretty warped bunch of people. In interviews I’ve watched with them they don’t claim they’re uncaring. They say that they’re spreading the word of God and telling us to follow it because if we don’t God will send us to Hell. That’s apparently how they interpreted “love thy neighbor”.
Everyone should be allowed freedom of speech, yes. But when you abuse that freedom to hurt other people, that privilege should be taken away from you. Period.
I think that a lot of times people try to apply the idea of “the right to free speech” where it isn’t really applicable… But unfortunately, it is definitely applicable here.
Yes, I think it is horrible and cruel to protest at military FUNERALS (they’re already dead, for goodness’ sake… How is it going to help ANYONE?!?). It also makes me so angry that their actions are giving all Christians (and especially Baptists) a very bad reputation…
But. Like I said before: this case is pretty cut-and-dry, especially since they are not on private property when they’re doing to protesting. This is America… People have the right to be a**holes.
A critical one but the right move… hopefully the protesters find somewhere else to protest
Freedom of speech covers a lot but it’s debatable where to draw the line, as one can see from the above comments. Apparently anybody can say whatever they want to hurt other people. Is that what America is now?
The westboro church is a group consisting of members mainly/solely from one family, right? Unless they pop out of children, and they manage to convince poor individuals to marry into their family, I would say this group will die out in a few generations. Then again, I could see the possibility that there are like-minded people who would join them too. As long as religion exists, groups like these will exist after all.
It sincerely saddens me but it is right. I wrote my own blog on it titled “Undoing Wrongful Religion.” I will be praying for the Westboro Baptist Church and there victims. I hope with all of my heart that when people look at that church they will not see God. And I also hope that God will entwine this church with a lot of His grace, mercy and Love. It looks like it is sorely needed.
protesting at funerals is in pretty poor taste but then again what do you expect from Fred G. Philips and his crowd?
@Spectrophile - I could not agree more with your comment. Religion needs to go away.
Ugh! Yes, the Westboro Baptist Church is a bunch of crazies… Although, I agree with this ruling solely because it protects EVERYONE’s freedom of speech, which is very important. I mean, if we were to prohibit one group from their rights just because we disagree with their opinions, what’s to stop someone else from prohibit OUR rights just because THEY disagree with US? We can’t have it both ways, obviously.
The freedom of speech doesn’t kick in until you wish you could outlaw someone’s speech.
Basically, I hope I live my life in such a way that Westboro protests my funeral. That will mean I must have done something right.
While what the Westboro Church does is detestable, I stand behind the ruling 100%. If you’re not for freedom of speech for others to say what you don’t believe in, you’re not for it at all. It’s the same with racists, homophobes, ect. They have full right to spout their hatred in verbal form, as long as they don’t get physical. That my sound sad, but it’s just how freedom of speech works.
@TheCheshireGrins - Considering how much he claims to be a strict “Constitutionalist” or whatever, it seems that he is abandoning his principles.
@Automaton_Emotion and @everyday_yogi
I was very proud of my little Kansas town when the Phelps protesters showed up here. Not only did the Patriot Guard arrive and encircle the funeral home, also many people who simply saw what was happening arrived to wave flags and join in blocking the mourners’ view of Phelps crew. Also, the fire engine, ambulance, and electric truck parked along that street and ran their engines loudly enough to drown out most of the shouted protests.
I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe in basic human decency.
@Spectrophile Groups like this will always exist. Hatred creates its own creed and if there is not a handy religious book for people to twist, they will twist scientific references as Hitler did.
it is a double standard. people say we have the freedom of speech, which is an outright lie, and then with the next breath say that harassment falls outside that right.
wrote a blog so to no eat up comment space. though it has crappy whitespace.
http://lenybobsyouruncle.xanga.com/742653768/moving-on-from-beating-straw-men/
it is about this specific instance and offers a possible solution, perhaps.
@lanney - Of course, if religion didn’t exist, there’d still be groups like this. The core problem / common denominator is irrational ideology. ie, Ideology not founded on reason and science. In reference to Hitler (and Stalin etc), I think you’re after the word pseudo-science, since they certainly didn’t adhere to the scientific method. There is certainly no empirical evidence of Nordic superiority or Jewish inferiority according to science, and then you have Stalin’s censorship of ‘bourgeois science’. If you can justify irrational ideology, you can literally justify anything.
@cmdr_keen - A few people mentioned counter-protests. I think it’s a great idea!
@CoderHead - At least we can take comfort in the fact that WBC’s ideologies don’t make a whole lot of sense!
@VilaSpiderHawkAuthor - A lot of people have mentioned counter-protesting, which I think is an absolutely brilliant idea. You’re right; the only way to fight hate is with lots of love!
@thisiswhereItellyoueverything - I love the idea of counter-protesting or having others band together to shield the families who have lost loved ones from WBC’s hate.
@AnyasFriendMe - I definitely believe that there is a time and an appropriate place for protesting and that some protests are more preferable than others but I don’t believe that we can draw that line as it sort of falls in a very gray area. There are most definitely slippery slopes everywhere as you say and therefore, I believe that the Supreme Court ruling in fact limits that slippery slope. Also, there is freedom from speech in a way. We can choose to not listen to anything that we deem to be something that we don’t want to hear. Sometimes it’s hard to do that and I have to imagine that it must be particularly hard for families of the lost loved ones to tune these crazies out but it can be done.
And I don’t believe in deleting comments unless someone is trolling me, which I don’t think you are
@tgwiy - I love the idea of counter protesting them! And on the rule following of the WBC, I just read an article about the Phelps family (I believe on Slate.com) about how all of his children except for two of them have law degrees and are very meticulous with ensuring that they follow the laws so that they don’t get in trouble!
@ViveFLIP - A few people pointed out that it would be possible for towns and states to change laws to make sure that all protesters must stand further away from funerals.
@AngelAsh_86 - I think there’s a difference between being hurtful and threatening with your speech. WBC is hurtful but they’re not threatening. Once they go over that line, there are laws to protect whomever they are threatening.
@psycocrazypony - Yeah, we’ve gotta defend the good, bad, and ugly in this case. Thanks for stopping by and thanks for the rec!
@Cliffycliffz - I hope you’re right!
@explosive - I’ve mentioned this to a few people above but I believe that there is a big difference between simply hurtful speech and threatening speech. Yeah, it’s horrible what WBC is saying but I don’t think they’ve gotten to a threatening level yet. If they do, there are protections for that.
@Spectrophile - Yeah, most of the members of the church are from the Phelps family and there are only about 100 people in the whole church. I think it’s plausible that they’ll eventually die out on their own.
@litupwishes - I think most people realize that the WBC people are a few fries short of a Happy Meal and don’t confuse it with most other religious groups and what they stand for.
@Tallman - Yeah, they lack couth.
@T0m03 - I think most would agree that WBC is spewing hateful speech but they haven’t reached the point where they’re threatening yet and therefore, freedom of speech still stands.
@SoapAndShampoo - That’s a good way to look at it. In that case, I hope that they protest my funeral as well.
Btw, I was just thinking about you the other day. I hadn’t seen you around for awhile. Hope all is well!
@MFerret - Yup, gotta protect the good, bad, and the ugly.
@At_Sixes_And_Sevens - Yeah, being able to speak your mind is so passe (I’d add an accent mark but I’m simply not that talented).
@christao408 - Yeah, it’s a little weird… I’m wondering if his ruling was based more on feelings than law…
@lanney - That is fantastic and I wish it would happen more often. In protesting the protesters in that way, I think it’s really supportive of the families who have lost loved ones.
@lenybobsyouruncle - I’ll stop by!
@TheCheshireGrins - Exactly. Yes, they do hurt some feelings… I definitely don’t agree with their message… But they do have their rights as we have ours.
Dear Meg,
I’m still posting sporadically, but I miss seeing you among my comments, so thought a visit was in order. How’s married life?
I didn’t read the ruling. I did read about it on one of my newsfeeds. Is there a distance that the protesters have to abide by? I think it’s devastating that the court ruled in favor of people who go around disturbing funerals. But if they were restricted to protesting a mile away from the cemetary, then maybe the funeral train could just come in the other way and pass them, so the mourners don’t have to witness anything.
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
Unfortunately, while I don’t like the ruling, I understand why they ruled in favor of the WBC. I think it is probable/possible that Alito would have sided with the rest, but that they needed someone to write the dissenting opinion on the ruling.
As a knee-jerk reaction, and I apologize to anyone who might offended by my reaction, I would say that if WBC gets to protest funerals, who’s to say that someone can’t put up a projector and screen and show Gay Porn (from a respectable distance of course) outside the WBC during their church services? That someone can use the same argument that WBC has been using as an excuse to protest funerals…