After watching the news today, I thought I'd take a moment to talk about the recent jury award of nearly $11 million to the parents of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. Corporal Snyder was killed in Iraq last year, and his parents sued Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church after members of the congregation showed up at the funeral protesting with signs that read "God Hates You" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
The church's message is simply that God is killing soldiers to punish America for tolerating homosexual behavior. Corporal Snyder's father, Albert Snyder, sued in U.S. District Court for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress and was awarded punitive and compensatory damages for his claim. As morally repugnant and disgraceful as I find the actions of Phelps and his congregation to be, it is critical that we are able to put emotions aside and look at this issue for what it really is.
The case, which is now being appealed by the Westboro Baptist Church, could seriously test the limits of free speech in this country. In response to repeated protests by Phelps' crew, several states have imposed restrictions on funeral protests and the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which prohibits demonstrations within a certain distance of national cemeteries, was signed into law by President Bush.
In some cases free speech has been limited by law, particularly when the speech was vulgar, offensive, or contained especially shocking words or statements. But it is important that we are careful about setting dangerous precedents, particularly when fundamental Constitutional guarantees are involved. Free speech is a hallmark of our society, and we are navigating dangerous waters when we start imposing restrictions based upon what certain persons or groups find objectionable. Doing so allows personal opinions and personal preferences to enter the equation, putting First Amendment rights in jeopardy. Today it's disparaging statments about dead soldiers. What will it be tomorrow that we find objectionable? What happens when another group finds something we believe objectionable?
I believe that groups like the Westboro Baptist Church are best dealt with by concerned citizens who use such opportunities to come to the aid of others and to express their own views, peacefully. The Patriot Guard Riders have done this by attending the same military funerals as the Westboro protestors and positioning themselves between the church's members and the families of our fallen soldiers, shielding them from the hate speech of Phelps and his congregation.
The Patriot Guard Riders are just as entitled to assemble at cemeteries as are the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. And it is the fundamental rights of free speech and assembly that our soldiers dedicate their lives to protecting, even when they find the speech or the actions of a particular group objectionable.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 8
I agree. I think Phelps, unfortunately has turned this into a discussion of "as an American, I can do anything I *$#@ well please."
People like Phelps, are the ones who endanger our rights of free speech. Who would have thought you would have needed protection from people like this at a funeral? And, does the family of the young man have any rights. Or, does Phelps rights trump the rights of the family, if it involves free speech. Contrary to popular belief, free speech doesn't "really" allow you to speak freely. It would be great if it did. But, if you believe it does, I can think of a number of things you should try saying in public.
People like this are detrimental to any worthy cause. This isn't about free speech. It's about Fred Phelps. It isn't even about his cause. It's about him. Think about it. He could have done his demonstration anywhere. He went where he could get the biggest bang for his buck. Now, that he's been sued, he wants to whine about it. I've got two words for him. Grow up. Well, how about two more? Pay up.
Here is a an excerpt of some commentary from Findlaw (link below) featuring the remarks of Michael Curtis, who teaches constitutional law, free speech and legal and constitutional history at Wake Forest Law School in Winston-Salem, North Carolina:
------
"Under current interpretations of our Constitution, I do not think the government could suppress criticisms or hate speech that referred to large groups -- whether based on race, gender, economic class, or whatever -- in newspapers, speeches in public parks, etc."
However, he said, the rules are different with regard to public schools and at work, or when the speech is focused on a particular person or student. "Our Constitutional law allows the government to protect people from direct threats and intimidation," Curtis noted.
For example, the Ku Klux Klan -- historically a group devoted to racism and bigotry against all sorts of people -– "could meet in a public park, burn a cross [a Klan symbol] and express its racist or other ideas," Curtis said. "The government could, however, punish burning a cross on someone else's property as a threat or intimidation."
news.findlaw.com/wash/s/20060214/20060214181642.html