 Commitment to the Constitution should always be measured by our willingness to support it, even when it protects those actions that most would abhor.
If that belief were ever put to the test, the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., would serve as a prime example.
The Westboro Baptist Church claims the deaths of America's military soldiers are God's punishment for a government that tolerates homosexuality. And to demonstrate this belief, they engage in vulgar and classless public protests.
Albert Snyder, whose son, a lance corporal in the Marines, was killed in Iraq. Snyder sued the Westboro Church for intentional infliction of emotional distress with vicious protests during his son's funeral. He initially won $5 million.
Last week, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Westboro Baptist Church's right to free speech. Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority stated: "As a nation, we have chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
What many legal scholars believed would be a struggle between free speech and privacy became a judicial rout for speech.
To say the Westboro Baptist Church possesses extreme stances against homosexuality is an understatement.
The theological activities for which they are perhaps best known would be their picketing funerals of gay victims of murder, those who may have died of complication of AIDS, along with other events related directly or peripherally to gays and lesbians.
Westboro is a 75-member congregation comprised largely of the family members of church's founder, Fred Phelps.
With their "God hates Fags!" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" placards, this paradoxical example of the church at its worst even picketed the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards late last year.
Beyond the simple fact that it is ludicrous and oxymoronic to spend one's time gallivanting about the countryside proclaiming one's hatred under the pseudonym of "church," I can't imagine someone protesting at the funeral procession of a fallen soldier.
If there were grounds to take away a groups' free speech, Westboro would certainly be high on my list.
This case raises the question: How far should the court go to protect free speech?
I don't get to say this often, but viscerally I agree with Sarah Palin. But visceral agreement does not grant the exception to disregard the First Amendment.
Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, opined, "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."
Though I sadly agree with the court's ruling, Alito's concern raises the possibility of members of Westboro becoming even more brazen in the action, increasing the potential for mayhem.
In this latter scenario, is free speech still protected or does this become akin to yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater?
This case reflected hurtful speech in the context of a military funeral; can it get any worse than that?
But the court, citing the flag-burning case, reaffirmed the principle that society can't prohibit the expression and an idea merely because society finds it offensive or disagreeable. Moreover, the interest of privacy becomes a secondary consideration when the speech in question is on a matter of public concern.
Intellectually, that makes sense. But I can't imagine any parents understanding that First Amendment right when a group of yahoos choose to exercise it while those parents are burying their fallen son or daughter.
Those who view this through their personal sense of right and wrong will understandably side against the Westboro Church. But the America experiment is more complicated.
The concept of free speech is so important that it protects hate speech. At times, it uses the vilest elements of society as the barometer for our commitment to the concept.
It affirms the rights of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. to remind the rest of us how deep this principle runs in our body politic.
On its surface, there is nothing about this decision to like. There is nothing to nuance or rationalize. People using free speech in a most deplorable manner had it protected by the court. It has been said that God protects fools, drunks and children. We can safely conclude, based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling, the First Amendment also protects fool
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
