The Supreme Court will review whether anti-gay protests at funerals of American soldiers are protected by the First Amendment, taking up the appeal of a Maryland man who won and then had reversed a $10 million verdict against the small Kansas church that conducts the demonstrations.
The case will seek to balance a group’s free speech rights with the rights of private individuals to be protected from unwanted demonstrations and defamatory remarks. A federal appeals court said the church’s protests were “utterly distasteful” but protected because they were related to “matters of public concern.”
I’m hoping they rule against these protests. They are despicable. What do you think — freedom of speech or hate speech?
Hate speech. Ban it.
That is a simplistic knee jerk reaction. The whole idea of hate speech gives them power and says as well that we are not really free to speak. Banning it gives it power and the resulting lawsuits guarantees years of these jerks being in the news. Remember the simple little ditty we all heard as kids – sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me. Phelps is after press and attention. If the media would agree to ignore him he would soon find something else to do.
I disagree. Simplistic, yes, but in many countries around the world, specific forms of hate speech are banned. Do a little research. The citizens in those nations still have their freedom. They don’t feel stifled or enslaved to the state. Their lives are complete without having the right to do what Fred Phelps and his family are allowed to do in USA. Allowing Westboro Baptist Church members to do this outside of funerals gives them power. Banning them from doing this helps castrate their power. You can tell me words can’t hurt you on the day these idiots are screaming obscenities at you outside your own son’s or daughter’s or wife’s or husband’s or mother’s or father’s funeral…until then, I don’t think so. Hey, I’m all for freedom, but this activity goes way beyond freedom. A family, any family, deserves the privilege to mourn in private without being harrassed by loudmouthed hateful mental midgets at the funeral. It doesn’t matter if the mourners are the family of a gay or lesbian person or the family of a soldier or the family of someone freshly executed off of the Texas Death Row. This kind of behavior toward mourning families is unacceptable. If people can’t understand a bit of class and taste, then there’s nothing wrong with the law dictating to them when it is appropriate to shut their mouths. The Phelps can go spout off somewhere else about things just as easily as in the face of the grieving on burial day. The Phelps church family couldn’t care less about whether or not the media pays any attention to them. Sure they’ll take the attention, but they won’t stop even if the media ignores them. You apparently have no idea of the true nature of Fred Phelps and the rest of his twisted clan. They are devoted to one thing: spreading the hatred which is their god. Period.
I think the American devotion to the USA Constitution sometimes borders on religious fervor and idiocy. The document is not perfect and could use a little tweaking. It is not the infallible inspired word of some god. Just like the Bible, it was written by men. But no, we’ll carry our guns and our free tongues and assassinate the hell out of each other using both because it is our birthright under the bloody Constitution. Nope we can’t change it. We are too stuck on just how goddamned right and perfect we are. We are morally superior to the rest of the world. It’s our way or the highway…such a great attitude…and then we wonder why the rest of the world hates us.
And who are you to say what qualifies as hate speech? Should just anything that could offend someone be hate speech? What if creationists decide that arguments against the bible are hate speech?
It’s true that the constitution is designed to change. That does not mean that we need to change every part. Freedom to say and think what you want is vitally important, especially in a country with such an enormous variety in culture and ideology.
I wouldn’t presume to be the sole sayer of what defines hate speech. I’m not that arrogant. There are laws on the books in many democracies around the globe which clearly define what is hate speech and what is not. Those laws could act as guidelines and shed some light on the discussion for new hate-speech laws to be enacted in the USA.
I never said change every single part of the Constitution, but I did say a little tweaking is needed. Don’t put words in my mouth, please and thank you. Freedom of thought is fundamental to human nature. Freedom of speech is another beast altogether. Go cry “fire” or “bomb” in a crowded airport terminal and see just how free your speech really is.
Let creationists call arguments against the Bible whatever they want to call them. Debate over truth and scientific fact vs mythology will never qualify as hate speech. Put it in the Constitution.
Calling religion culture and ideology is a core problem with the American way of thinking. Religion is a pack of lies. Period. If I organize a massive cult tomorrow which worships dog poo and millions follow my example and bathe in dog poo every day before going to work, do you think it will be called culture or diversity? Do you think it should be given tax exempt status? Should I be allowed to get rich off the backs of my brainwashed poo-washed followers and avoid paying taxes and have all sorts of ridiculous political and cultural influence just because I decided to do it? Let’s call a spade a spade. Let’s end the foolishness already. Let’s employ some common sense. Allowing members of the Westboro Baptist Church to disturb the peace by directing homophobic hatred toward funeral attendees should not be a Constitutional right under any guise.
I never said change every single part of the Constitution, but I did say a little tweaking is needed. Don’t put words in my mouth, please and thank you.
Er…”tweaking” the Constitution is tantamount to changing it. But for a semi-colon, an entire 150 years’ worth of arguing over the right to bear arms (as it is presented in the US Constitution) would have been avoided, just for one example.
Freedom of thought is fundamental to human nature. Freedom of speech is another beast altogether. Go cry “fire” or “bomb” in a crowded airport terminal and see just how free your speech really is.
And speech concurrent with or directly intended to provoke lawless action is already not protected, so no change needed. My problem with what you’re saying is that you want to “tweak” excluded speech to include things that do not meet the Brandenberg standard (intention to prvoke or accompany imminent lawless action); this goes much further than what is already covered in the “falsely shouting fire” examples, and is the fine but crucial line between merely eschewing speech that directly harms people in an actionable way from jeopardizing any speech a government wishes to suppress. It’s not so much a slippery slope as a cliff.
Unfortunately, free speech.
I am not that familiar with the great country of America. So does free speech in your country mean that you can say whatever you want regardless of consequence?
If so, that is silly (feel free to go nuts on that comment). Above all, at a FUNERAL!? This almost seems like some kind of harassment.
I kind of prefer the old saying of, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, then stay quiet.” I know there are situations where mean things must be said, but this seems like such a blatant clear cut case of ignorant homophobic people. I mean, how can you even protest a sexual preference? The whole premise seems ridiculous!
Not quite. You can’t harass people beyond a point (which is what this entire case is about, I believe), you can’t lie about people in a way that will directly affect their livelihood or standard of living (slander or libel), you can’t say anything that will incite violence or panic (i.e. shouting fire in a crowded theatre), you can’t break noise ordinances or other ordinances without the proper permits and you must be on either your own or public property.
No one has the right to not be offended and everyone has the right to express their own opinions. If Nazi’s want to march down main street with banners about how evil jews and blacks are, they can go to city hall, get a permit and march on that date. Hiding an issue doesn’t get rid of it. It’s better to have the ideas out in the open and free for discussion.
How is speech handled in your country?
You know what, I’m not completely sure. There haven’t been too many incidents like this in Canada. Though if I’m wrong please correct me.
Still, I know that censorship is a dangerous road, but this is simply propagating hate. If those Nazi’s go and have a parade, sure. But if they have signs that say “die Jews die”, then that’s JUST attacking a different kind of person and serves no purpose. Regardless of how they feel. There just seems to be no obvious justification for such action.
If you walk down the street with a sign that says, “Obama is silly!” or “Republican’s are wankers!” at least MAYBE you are saying something about the political views of those people, or something of merit worth discussing.
I dunno. I guess I can’t expect too much of America yet (in this respect), as Gay marriage is still outlawed in most states. I’m not trying to be condescending, I just know it’s going to be a long hard fight for many in America, and it’s going to take time. Which is very frustrating to me, and about a million times more so for those who have to directly deal with it.
My question is why these people are allowed on private property? My understanding of cemeteries is that there are some municipal ones, some church owed ones, and some family owned ones. I can see them protesting on municipal ones, but the other two would count as private property and protesters would be trespassing.
Then again, I could be wrong. Either way, I find statements like “fags die” to be hate speech because of the inherent threat contained in the statement, while “fags are sinners” to (unfortunately) be free speech since it voices an (unpopular) opinion.
My understanding is that they’re not on cemeteries. They’re in the closest public area and make sure they’re loud enough to be heard. Often the processions have no choice but to pass by them.
I think the best response to bad speech is more speech. Protest the protesters. Mock them.
But don’t ban them. Don’t make them martyrs. Don’t give them the soap box of the oppressed to stand on. It’s exactly what they want.
Point and laugh. They are doing more to destroy Christianity than Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens combined.
Yep.
what you said.
I’m looking forward to the day that Phelps dies. I’ll go protest his funeral. Something like “too bad there’s not a hell”
This.
My southern Baptist upbringing makes me want to shout AMEN! but I see mocking them, laughing at them as the best possible move. They are bullies and media whores. They have found a way to get attention and the best way to deal with them is to take the spotlight off of them. One part of me is waiting for the day when the news story breaks about Reverend Phelps affair with a gay man. It has happened to a lot of the other big anti-gay ministers and usually seems to end their careers.
You would think that the extreme fringe would TURN OFF the mainstream. But there is a danger that the SHEEP will follow in mass numbers. It happened in Nazi Germany. It has happened throughout history. Christ (if you excuse the expression), Sarah Palin actually has FANS!!! Doesn’t that give you pause before you give the mainstream too much credit???
Horrible, but is free speech.
Free speech…doesn’t matter if it is despicable, it’s the stuff you don’t like that needs the protection of the 1st amendment. It’s too easy to stand up for speech when you agree w/it.
++
Free speech isn’t free unless you are free to say bad things.
I do agree… but would we allow signs at an african-american’s funeral saying “Blacks die, God laughs” and all that crap? Or a Jewish funeral saying “Die Jews”?
I do lean towards free speech, but I wonder if there should be limits.
Daniel, just look at England’s libel laws and hate speech laws. They are abused to protect bad opinions all the time.
If we made a law saying that protesting hate, how long would it be that some fundamentalist called a pro-evolution hate speech for his faith?
The Phelps clan is a tiny minority. Anti protests like Michael Moores gay bus are perfect. We need more of that kind of free speech. (egads, did I just agree with Moore? Now I feel all icky :)
In Britain we have taken restrictions to freedom of speach far, far too far – but only when it relates to speach by minority groups (specifically Muslims). When it comes to right-wing race-hate groups, they seem to be able to say what they like. It’s become deeply, deeply sinister.
“Daniel, just look at England’s libel laws and hate speech laws. They are abused to protect bad opinions all the time.”
Don’t believe what you read in the media all the time … England’s libel laws do have problems but they are not abused all the time, they are abused by a few select individuals. Hate speech is certainly not abused all the time.
No Limits.
If you are only allowed to say nice things or neutral things, whats the point? Its better to legislate the consequences of speech if you can directly tie the speech to actions.
I think that a lot could be acheived through restraining orders in this case.
Hence the Brandenberg standard.
I also support the freedom to punch out the person shouting Hate Speech, this goes hand in hand with the freedom of a jury to acquit the actions of the puncher. It would just take it happening once for the Phelps and the like to rethink their whole strategy.
The question is though, who decides what the limits will be?
I would have to allow those terrible posters. I would not like them, but freedom doesn’t mean not allowing stuff we don’t like. I feel the same way in regards to any sort of hate speech law, even any hate crime law. Why is it more evil to murder (for example) someone because you hate their race than it is to murder someone because you just hate them? None, to me, save we are trying what someone believes. I cannot condone that.
Both. Hate speech, to my knowledge, isn’t illegal in the US unless you’re advocating violence.
I think what these people do should be considered harassment, though. People have a right to private moments, especially during times of grief.
i agree here — it’s harassment. i think funerals are private affairs, generally. if someone came to your house and protested your lifestyle, i’m pretty sure you could legally call the cops. maybe the people who run the cemeteries could do more to protect the grieving families?
Agreed. They’re allowed to say whatever they like about American soldiers (within the limits of libel), but the way they conduct themselves right next to a funeral should be considered harassment, I think.
I’m unsure as to whether freedom of speech can be juridically limited by such specific circumstances, however.
They are called “time, place, and manner” restrictions, and are a hotly contested area of free speech law.
I incline towards both as well. To be fair, I’m not sure what the definition of “Hate speech” actually is. If there even is one. But that definitely falls under free speech.
I think you have to lean toward free speech.
I am torn – it is free speech of sorts, but one does not have the right to speak freely everyplace. I can disagree with my neighbor’s beliefs, but I cannot stand in front of his house screaming about that disagreement. (Quite frankly, I don’t care that the locality had given the whackos a permit.)
That group is just vile – using service-members’ funerals to push its own agenda. My brother is a member of Freedom Riders (I think that is the name) – motorcyclist who ride to these funerals to stand between the whackos and the poor family burying their loved one. I don’t know how he manages to stay in line, and not walk over to the protesters to destroy their signs…
I dog sit for a member of the freedom riders. I believe her words were “It’s hard to hear them over 100 motorcycles revving their engines.”
Are they the ones that gather at the protests and just crank their cycles the entire time? I really like those guys. They were in the documentary about these idiots (can’t remember the title) and I cheered when the bikers drowned them out while they were protesting.
I think this is hate speech. There is 0 reason for this at this point. Those people are off their rockers and should be in an institution as it is.
Regular crimes versus hate crimes = no difference. Free speech versus hate speech = no difference. If ANY speech can be interpreted to foment violence or if it can be shown to actually foment violence then the speakers must be held liable.
This.
I don’t think we should have hate crimes that have different rules from regular crimes. If I killed someone, why should I get a tougher sentence b/c I did it b/c the person was gay? That doesn’t matter. The penalty should be the same whether I did it out of hate for them or whether I did it just b/c I felt like it. The same goes for speech. Free speech can’t have limitations, otherwise it isn’t free.
I do agree with others that what this church does borders on harassment though.
I disagree. The additional punishment isn’t because someone committed the “crime” of hating the victim, it’s because they’re using the victim as a proxy for others like him.
Lynchings in the South weren’t just about killing a black guy because someone hated black people. It was also a warning to other black people to stay in the shadows and not do anything to draw attention to themselves.
It’s exactly like terrorism. There are more victims than the people who are physically injured- there are the people who are afraid to leave their home, or afraid to fly, there are the businesses that suffer, etc.
Hate crime legislation is about punishing violent criminals for the collateral damage of their crimes. It’s not about punishing “hate”- the name is simply unfortunate.
Despicable yes, but I don’t think the government should be deciding upon matters of taste. Let them continue.
Remember, the Supreme Court decisions don’t affect isolated cases but set the groundwork for other decisions. Are you sure you want that?
I second the second comment. Unfortunately, free speech.
The courts or rather the people who are behind lawsuits like this should focus on the separation of church and state – cuf federal fundings, etc.
It is free speech, but once it becomes harassment (which I most definitely think it is when it involves private funeral services for families that are already in emotional distress over the tragic loss of a loved one) it should be banned. I have a very strong opinion about this group. Frankly, I think they should be forcefully taken in for psychological evaluation and then medicated accordingly. *spits on the ground*
In several posts I’m seeing conflation of harassment and rights to privacy.
Why is a grave side service considered private when it is conducted at an establishment that provides no structured expectation of privacy (doors, locks, special invitation to an enclosed space)? Is it really a privacy right when it would only be enacted to constrain bigots?
There are many ways for loved ones to express their grief in private. I’m a gay man. I would love to have Phelps at the graveside. In fact, if Phelps agrees to show up and protest then that would be about the only thing that would make me want one of those anachronistic events. As others have said, he does more for gay rights than I ever could.
Other peoples’ sexuality is NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTT a “matter of public concern”. The judge had his homophobic head shoved right up his homophobic arse.
No, but what the law states, regarding sexuality and related matters, is a matter of public concern. And I seriously doubt that the appeals court decision was driven by homophobia; judges in the US are required to construe “public concern” as broadly as possible, and would perforce include any subject related to any area of legislative action.
Firstly, this is protected. They are allowed to say and think whatever they want.
Secondly, the phrase “hate speech” or “hate crime” is weird to me. Doesn’t a “hate crime” meet the same criteria as a “crime?” If I beat them up because they are super-religious fundaloons, is that crime or “hate crime?” It’s the same, it’s assault.
I’m not sure we should even bother separating the two. Speech is protected, whether it is hateful or not.
Once again, this is true unless it incites violence.
This is putting the Phelps free speech rights ahead of the rights of an emotionally distraught family to grieve in peace. The emotional well being of the family and friends of the dead should be given at least equal if not more consideration to the Phelps’s right to free speech at least during the funeral. Its a funeral not a political march.
I really don’t know if the law addresses such issues of grieving families but maybe it should. At least during the funeral. I’m sure there are legal ways around this issue that will protect free speech and prevent harassment someone just has to figure it out.
Maybe someone could get “Repent Amarillo” to go after the Phelps family.
Sorry maybe I shouldn’t fantasize openly on this post.
Free speech.
Disorderly Conduct
“A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons; ”
I think that local law enforcement should arrest the protesters. Their arrest may not hold up, but it would stop the protest long enough for the funeral to end.
The funeral is a lawful assembly of persons. The protesters are disrupting that lawful assembly with their hateful words and signs.
Exactly, I agree.
The law as stated could also be used with the same argument to stop protests at political rallies or government events. Do you really want to give government officials this power?
As despicable as these Aholes are they have the right for free speech however what I would love to see is the families who’s funerals were protested band together and get some shark lawyer to sue the phelps family (inflicting emotional distress or something similar). I’m sure they will have no problem finding a sympathetic jury who will award them a huge settlement that will wipe WBC off the face of the earth.
Hate speech for sure, I think we should all having a laughing protest where we go out and laugh at them until they leave.
What would they say to 1st John 4:8…”he who doesn’t love doesn’t know God, for God is love”.
There is no love there, only hatred which the world has plenty of as is. They desperately need a love revelation/revolution.
I know you’re trying to defend Jesus and all, but your comment is rather off topic and a little asinine. The question is whether we should ban the protesters, not whether they are truly christians. Unless of course you are implying that christian speech deserves a different legal standard than non-christian speech.
We protect the freedom of speech because we are all protected by it.
Just because we are looking at it from what we would all call a more reasonable side, i.e., they are obviously hateful, you can’t say they don’t have a right to say it. It’s not for the government, at least in the U.S., to decide what is ok to say and what is not ok to say. There are some reasonable issues with when and where, as elaborated upthread, but it’s wrong to censor speech which is controversial altogether, because you never know when you will need the freedom of speech to say something others do not want to hear. If they think they are the majority, if they assess themselves as reasonable, if they call what you say “hate speech” because that is how they see things, and want to make a big deal about keeping you quiet, at least they will not have a right to do so.
How much love did Jesus show his human parents when he disappeared without telling them anything…leading to their intense fear for his life?
Or, what about the sellers in the temples, who after all were merely earning a living.
Or those who he will roast for eternity for doubting him?
Free speech i suppose, although it makes me cringe. But the way they are spreading their love, it’s not reaching to think one of these grieving parents will shoot them. They should be able to carry on a funeral in peace though, what they did should be illegal if their disturbing a active funeral.
I think they should be able to say pretty much anything they want, just not anyplace at anytime they want.
Here is the thing:
they did not break the law. They were on public property and they-or anyone else-was free to congregate and protest whatever they wanted.
The person bringing the lawsuit saw them on TV and was offended from afar, which also makes me think this is a bad case.
Besides, the counter-protesters that are showing up now are slowly making them ridiculous. Banning them gives them power, it is saying that their brand of lunacy is actually powerful and dangerous.
All counties or cities have to do is have an ordinance stating that there is no protesting within X yards of a funeral, funeral home, or cemetary.
Beliefs and expression of those beliefs are two seperate issues. These people seem to have forgotten that the mercy their God extended to them is also extended to everyone else as well. Very sad indeed!
Most unfortunate is the amount of mental anguish this particular group has cast upon the family members of American servicemen whom only want to bury their family members in peace. That is where the expression by this group of their beliefs crosses the line.
One’s beliefs are, and should be, considered inviolable. However, the expression of those beliefs in ways that are clearly meant to be physically, psychologically, and spiritually hurtful should not be protected under the Constitution of the United States of America.
As reprehensible as Westboro Baptist Church is, the moment we restrict speech on the grounds that we “don’t like it” (and call it hate speech), we put ourselves on the road to tyranny. I believe that Captain Jean-Luc Picard put it quite eloquently in the TNG episode, “The Drumhead”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70
He’s good for it.
Free Speech.
(dammit. I really dislike those assholes.)
This case is a no brainer. As a lawyer, I don’t see the Supreme Court reversing the court of appeals that thew out the entire verdict. Shame on the trial court judge for ever letting this case go to trial. It should have been dismissed in favor of Phelps at a summary judgment motion.
The protesters were on a public street/sidewalk across the street from a church/funeral home. These protesters also show up at cemeteries, which can be private, however, in the case of military personnel, they are often at government owned, national cemeteries. As such, they are taxpayer supported public properties and protesters, with proper permits, can protest.
The continued light that these public protests have shined on Phelps and his small minion of wing nuts have further marginalized them. They used to protests in MN, but other groups, such as the Patriot Guard, have grown in numbers and popularity to act as a buffer between the grieving family and friends and the whack jobs carrying anti gay signs.
At one funeral I attended, the Patriot Guard formed a flag bearing line around the entire funeral home for the wake and the funeral. They formed another perimeter flag line around the burial site. There were no protesters in sight. The protesters have also been known to line the route between the funeral home or church and the cemetery. The Patriot Guard also escort the procession and have no trouble drowning out the protesters with their motorcycles.
This drowning out of the wing nuts with other forms of expression, such as motorcycle exhaust, have caused Phelps and his fans to pack up and leave MN. The protesters’ message is withering under the weight of it’s own stupidity. That is really the point of free speech. Outrageous speech usually dies after people move beyond the emotion of the speech and look at the facts.
And anyway, as someone said, if God (?) hates homosexuals, how come he makes so many of them?
Gotta burn something in hell.
Totally, totally disgusting, but particularly in light of the details provided in Dead’s comments above, it seems clear it is protected speech. On the upshot, this kind of ridiculous display of callousness and cruelty does much more to mobilize allies of the LGBT-movement than it does to further the cause of the Religious Right.
The one thing I wonder is if this could be construed as libel or slander? Because they are protesting homosexuality at the funerals of soldiers who aren’t gay, it kind of creates the misconception in the public’s eye that Phelps is protesting gay soldiers. (He has a very confusing tactic to be sure). If this damages the reputation of the fallen soldiers (particularly if they are married and it calls into question their fidelity) perhaps the families could sue on this basis? I don’t really know the law that well.
But as Dead as suggested, there are more productive ways of drowning out stupid speech than jeopardizing free speech in general.
I hate to say it but Free Speech.
If we start limiting the First Amendment then where does it stop?
Free Press? The Right to Bear Arms? Freedom of Religion?
Fred Phelps has done a great deal to advance gay rights. He is the mirror of what these hate mongers sound like and there are many people finally speak out out against this kind of hatred against homosexuals. Let him keep it up. He’s harming his own agenda.
So true. I almost could see this as some massive put on by him to basically normalize society to homosexuals. If you ever notice when the public are interviewed around those protests, you can see their prejudices breaking down because they see just how insane the West Burros are and they don’t want to be apart of it.
You know the really wacky thing? The dude was like a civil rights icon in Oklahoma back in the day. No kidding, he got an award from the NAACP for his work in fighting Jim Crow laws. He just started to crack and its been a gradual decent…and for some reason, his whole family joined in on the ride to madness.
To be completely honest, as a former military member, seeing his family at funerals for fallen soldiers, I want to punch a wall…but its his right to be an ass and a hateful, horrid person.
Hate speech, without a doubt. These people make me sick to my stomach! I hope the Supreme Court is sensible about this. It is one thing to disagree with what someone does, but another to protest at someone’s funeral. The later is absolutely despicable.
I would love to say that Phelps and his whole sick church should be silenced, but this is exactly what the freedom of speech is all about. No protection is needed for popular speech. Nor is there a right against being offended. Such a right cannot exist along with freedom of speech. In the end, allowing them to speak is the best medicine for them. Even among Christians these folks are a laughing stock. I would hate to have them show up at a funeral for one of my loved ones and they might receive the appropriate response from others at the funerals. Giving them attention only reinforces them and encourages them. Laughter would be the best response. The lawsuit empowers them, giving them much more than their fifteen minutes of fame.
Democracy and our freedoms are a messy business. As despicable as the protestors are, if they are on public property, they can say whatever they want. There is nothing special about the funeral of a military person that should abrogate the right to freedom of speech.
Free speech. We can’t limit their right to protest what they want. The First Amendment has blood in its history, and we have to respect that.
Sadly, I’d say that their antics fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment. They know how to play the system and they are doing exactly that..
Like a certain Futurama character says, I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight tooth and nail for your right to say it.
…Or I would if I hadn’t lost my teeth and nails on Mars and Saturn respectively.
I think this should be classified as hate speech. I’ll bet if some anti-Christian activist carried signs that said “Jesus rapes babies” at pastors’ funerals I’ll bet they would get into legal trouble. There is no reason these people have to protest with such language at people’s funerals.
I’d rather be offended than be restricted.
I am glad that these folks are barred from entering the UK, where they have wanted to come and picket military funerals. Honestly, over here we wouldn’t be so tolerant – and I don’t mean the law, I mean the bereaved. Turning up to a funeral where a hundred or so soldiers are mourning a friend and start shouting that he was a fag and god hates him? Police or no police, they’d be beaten to death by a mob.
Free speech, no question. It doesn’t matter how awful these people are, the right to say things that offends other people and the government is fundamental. They are not violent and they are not inciting violence. Once you say that speech rights are up for interpretation, it’s just a matter of time before someone will abuse that power.
Too much freedom might not be such a good thing. We are all taught in the USA to revere our Constitution and to cherish our Constitutional Freedoms. We are told by everyone — our parents, teachers, fire fighters, friends, family, presidents, scout leaders, celebrities, heroes, villains, police officers, the Civil Liberties Union, television shows, politicians, attorneys and everyone else inbetween — that what we have in the USA is priceless. We believe it because everyone else does. We are expected to cherish our freedom of speech, our right to bear arms, our religious freedoms and a whole lot of other things. We don’t know anything different. Our devotion to our Constitution borders on cultishness. It’s no different than the devotion of religious zealots to their beliefs — the Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists, the Mormons, the Catholics or the Evangelicals — we’re acting just like them.
Take a step back for a minute. Put yourself in the shoes of someone from outside the USA. Think of Denmark, Iceland, France, New Zealand, Germany, South Africa and Switzerland, to name only a few. To these other citizens of the planet we look like raving idiots and we’ve been taught to be proud of that. We cherish and hold dear our absolute freedoms because everyone around us during our entire lifetimes has told us to. We believe what we have been told. We believe what everyone around us says it is important to believe. We are acting like mindless ultra-patriotic sheep. There’s not a lot of difference between nationalist patriotic sheep and religious sheep.
Do any of us ever stop to think that maybe our Constitution isn’t perfect? Do any of us stop to think that perhaps the human race, USA citizenship or otherwise, is not yet evolved enough to handle the levels of freedom granted under the United States Constitution? The Constitution was not perfect. It needed Amendments to fix it. Maybe those Amendments aren’t quite perfect either. Why is the Constitution of the United States of America deemed by the vast majority of USA citizens to be the Infallible Inspired Word of Freedom? What have any of us ever done to deserve 100% of the rights guaranteed us under the Constitution? Why are we all so concerned about retaining our absolute freedom over the worst possible crap which can fall out of our mouths or drip off the ends of our writing instruments? Why are we all so concerned about having the absolute freedom to cart around weapons as if it’s some divinely granted right of ours to deliver at will the death and destruction which blazes out the barrels of our guns? Why are we so damned concerned over the freedom of religious idiots and liars to pander and spread their undeniably false bullcrap without check and balance across the land? Why don’t we demand some truth in advertising for a change? Why don’t we unequivocally force Toyota tell the truth to American consumers once and for all? Why do we allow big money, big insurance, big banks, corporate lobbyists and unlimited amounts of corporate campaign donations to control our politicians, our health care and our personal wealth? Why for eight long recent years did we roll over and sacrifice to GWB a buttload of our Constitutional Freedoms in return for a false sense of security? I think these are valid questions to ask ourselves and some very important points to ponder. As a whole, the United States is falling apart at the seams, financially, intellectually and morally. When will we ever learn to consider the possiblity that we are not 100% right in everything we believe, say and do? Where do our values lie? Do we have the willingness to examine ourselves, our beliefs, our freedoms, our political system, and our Constitution and find fault where there is fault? Do we have the courage and the humility to make change where change is due, or will we stand defiantly against the rest of the world, ugly in our pride and patriotism, and declare that We the People are without fault in every way, We the People shall change not, and We the People will answer to no one? I ask each and every atheist who reads this: Is the Constitution of the United States of America your God?
That’s the most frightening, insidious, soul-chilling horror I’ve heard, read or seen today.
The nations of Denmark, Iceland, France, New Zealand, Germany, South Africa and Switzerland and a lot of others all have laws restricting hate speech. This is what I was referring to when I said too much freedom might not be such a good thing. Do the citizens of those nations look all bent over in fear and grief? Do they look like their souls are chilled? Do they seem to be affected by the horror you perceived in my words? Are their mouths taped shut? Do they quake in their boots at the thought of opening their mouths? Of course they don’t! They have freedom up the wazoo! Grow up! This is exactly what I was talking about. Most Americans are brainwashed into believing that our extreme levels of freedom are sacrosanct, and I am here saying they are not. I happen to like civility. I like law and order. I think the Constitution could use a few more Amendments to further define and refine the freedoms we enjoy today. It’s my opinion. This is a discussion. I’m not Stalin. I’m not Hitler. I don’t aspire to control the USA. I’m simply another talking head online who happens to have an opinion which may or may not differ from your own opinion. I just happen to believe hate speech is wrong wrong wrong. Relax! You are all entitled to your own opinions. *Hugs*
In a reasonable and/or homogeneous society, which doesn’t necessarily exclude the US, a lot of the time, people will socially agree what is ok to say, they will agree by etiquette and social appropriateness. Even in the US, you make it sound like a horrible place, where people never shut up insulting everyone else because they are all about using their freedoms or else they will go to waste!
Freedom of speech is a very specific thing that we really are all benefited by. Most of the time, we don’t notice if we are using this freedom or just talking to someone. When you want to make a protest, it is considered rude, but protected. It is rude to protest a funeral and then to say derogatory things within earshot of the mourners. Think of how many things you would like to say to someone but you know it would be rude, so you don’t say these hurtful things. I notice a lot of times on blogs, someone will say something negative, and someone else will always say, “whatever happened to, if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all?” That is the difference between discussion and cheerleading.
We are just a country with a lot of ideas. It benefits no one to keep these ideas all to ourselves. You are excepting a particularly bigoted hate speech, but what about protesting an unjust war? Just because the majority is in favor of the war, and the government is in charge of it, do you think that is hate speech? Some people do. Popular opinions do not need protection, but basically what you are suggesting is a government where popular opinions are enforced, and because most people have popular opinions (by definition of popular), they are not unhappy with this system.
Childish hostility.
A pretense, actually covert hostility.
Then why the diatribe against others expressing them in response to you spewing yours?
I harbor zero hostility toward you — childish, covert or otherwise. I spewed my opinions. You shuddered in horror. I thought your response was a bit of an overreaction so I told you to relax.. I gave my rebuttal and I sent you a sincere hug. Take it or leave it. There was no diatribe against you: Was I bitter against you? Was I abusive to you? Did I call you names? Did I attack you? Did I criticize you? I don’t feel that I did. Those things are what constitute a diatribe. I don’t even know you so it’s not even remotely possible for me to like you or dislike you or form a basis for attacking you. I am passionate in my beliefs. I’m sorry you perceived my words in such a negative personal way and I offer you my heartfelt apology for it.
It’s because we have humility we don’t change it. Changing the Constitution at will is a very bad precedent. A lot of people already think the government governs too much. You are asking for the government to hold our hands like we are children, so we obey and do whatever we’re told, for our own good. Your rant is impressive, but you are kind of a nut. There are people who want to change our constitution in other ways, ways that you would not like. If they have the “courage and humility” to assess the condition of the USA and decide that something needs fixed, you are essentially condoning the process where they may decide to do so, whereas presently we have the right to suppress it and protest it. Sure, you don’t like some of the freedoms we have. Some people don’t like some of the other freedoms we have and can go on a lot longer and frothier than you, vote people into office, and there, you have change to your constitution. I’m sure that will thrill you when someone else does something as they see fit.
You seem to think the actual government is reasonable to enact only reasonable laws if they were to change things “we the people” don’t like about the US, or you can also go to one of those countries that you mentioned. I am not ordinarily in favor of telling a citizen to GTFO, but it seems to be more like what you want. It is really your freedom of speech you are enjoying when you say the government should change something because you don’t like it, so it is sort of ironic.
You seem to be in favor of ruling the land by decree of whatever you think is fair and just – that really diminishes democracy. Whoever is in power can decree what seems right and just to them. Whoever votes them into power by their numbers can elect who they think is right and just, who might be wrong and unjust to your personal preferences. Do you have an idea why the constitution is so important? You don’t seem to appreciate the magnitude of changing it to suit your vision. You don’t seem to appreciate the ability to say what’s wrong with the government as you see it without being tossed in jail while saying people offend you and they should keep quiet. If you really want to live in a country without this element of fairness, you have to move to a different one. The establishment of a government that was not a monarchy is important. You are allowed to think as well as say what is on your mind. They are not doing the thinking for you, and their feelings aren’t hurt if you disagree with them or anyone else. I mean, your whole idea here really bashes on some notion of zealotry, when really, you haven’t thought this thing all the way through. Support and defense of the Constitution is important, because willfully changing it could have adverse effects you don’t seem to have considered.
You are naive. The Constitution has been amended 27 times already. I am not suggesting we abandon the Constitution. I am suggesting that maybe we should keep looking at it as a work in progress. It is not UnAmerican to understand that the Constitution could be amended yet again at some point in the future. I am a patriotic American. I am just as patriotic as you are. Frankly, your suggestions to the contrary stink! I am grateful for my right to say what I wish to say here. All I am saying is that maybe — just maybe — hate speech should be regulated just a little bit. I am not the only person who feels this way. This is not about me and me alone. This is simply my opinion, an opinion shared by others. It’s not something universally agreed upon. I also realize that Amending the Constitution would be a really big deal which would take the consensus of the vast majority of Americans. Constitutional Constipation, however, is not healthy. Keep an open mind, please.
First of all, you have a logical error in your argument. You argue that we don’t need many of our constitutional freedoms and then, as an example of how our country is wrong (presumably because of too much freedom) you cite Bush for taking away constitutional freedoms. According to your opening statements Bush is actually in the right.
Now, of course the constitution isn’t perfect. The constitution does many good things though. Its primary purpose is to prevent mob rule. In a purely democratic society 10 people can come into room and take a vote. If 9 people all vote to kill the 10th then it is legal and allowed. A constitution is a document that prevents this type of abuse of the minority by the majority. This is why every modern country has a constitution of sorts. We may disagree on which rights should be in the constitution, but to claim that valuing the constitution and the freedoms it guarantees is bad is showing a complete lack of understanding about how society works.
I can see that via one of your quotes
What have any of us ever done to deserve 100% of the rights guaranteed us under the Constitution?”
you do not understand the nature of the freedoms in the constitution. The U.S. government is based on Lockian principles of freedom. Every human is “endowed with certain inalienable rights” by virtue of simply being human. The purpose of the constitution is not to give us rights but to keep others from taking away the rights we were born with. By thinking that the constitution grants rights you have shown a lack of understanding about the philosophical principles that underlie America. The basic philosophical principle is that laws are designed to keep others from violating your natural rights. This philosophy isn’t always followed, such as in the case of discriminatory laws, but it is the basis of all laws. The purpose of the constitution is to enumerate what the rights are that we have. The ninth and tenth amendments in particular express this view when they state that the purpose of the bill of rights is for the people, not for the government.
As for your other criticism of the U.S.; I agree on many of them. However it does not follow that we should simply abandon our constitution. Reform is quite possible under the constitution. And if necessary the constitution can be amended, as you have already mentioned.
Now, the main question, should freedom of speech be a right and how far should it go. I firmly believe that this is free speech and that we should never try to make laws hampering such speech. Of course this is offensive speech. But it does not follow that we should ban it. The countries you listed do have certain laws banning various forms of speech. I know that the most commonly cited speech ban is that in much of Europe it is illegal to deny the holocaust or speak favorably of Nazis. While I hate Nazis as much as the next person this is a very disturbing idea. Basically the government of these countries has decided the official version of history (even though in this case it is the true version) and make it illegal to question this version. In what way would this be different than say Iran deciding that not only did the holocaust not happen but to say it did was illegal? Since the actual facts are not allowed to be researched or discussed one cannot know who is telling the truth and therefore both are identical in nature, purpose, and effect. I know that we all hate creationism and are certain that it is false, but would you argue for making it illegal to advocate? Of course not, because this lends them credibility and makes those who believe feel like there is a vast conspiracy to get them. Better to let these ideas die in the sunlight of reason. Another example of speech control is the blasphemy laws in Italy and Ireland to name a few (I won’t try to use the Islamic ones as they aren’t western countries and I don’t want to get into that fight). In both of these countries a specific type of speech is banned because it is offensive and, according to the government, has no real value. It is exactly like the protesters at this funeral. The best example though is political speech. In many communist countries (China, USSR) and even in America (alien and sedition acts) speech which criticized the government was made illegal. They felt that speech again did no good and only offended people. Seeing as how part of your rant was about the failings of America I can only assume you do not approve of making political dissent illegal. I am not giving a slippery slope argument here. I am saying that any philosophy which allows us to deny protesters the right to stand on public property and picket funerals also allows us to make blasphemy, scientific discussion, and political dissent illegal. If we ever make it illegal for one group of people to say things we don’t like then we set the legal precedent that anyone can make it illegal for someone to say things they don’t want to hear.
Finally, you hold up Europe as a bastion of reason but they also have their problems. Just on the freedom side we should remember that England has more CCTV cameras than people, Switzerland has banned minarets, and France is trying to ban burqas. America was built on the radical notion that people are already free, and that governments roll is to keep others from impinging on that freedom. Much of Europe is based on the notion that all rights are granted by the sovereign (in this case a democratically elected government) and so can be taken away at any time. I personally prefer living in a country that is based on freedom and would like it to remain such a country.
My point about Constitutional rights and Bush is that, while we were all focused on things like maintaining our precious freedom of speech and our right to bear arms, some very important rights were being pilfered away behind our backs by GWB and VP Cheney in the name of national security. That is a valid observation and not a flaw in the logic of my argument.
I do understand perfectly the idea that humans are born with certain inalienable rights which the Constitution was designed to protect. I would argue that other creatures might also be born with some of the same rights we claim for humans. I would also argue that bearing arms is not an inalienable right with which we are born, but rather it is one which is in fact granted to us under the Constitution. I understand perfectly the philosophical principles upon which the United States of America was founded. I don’t lack any understanding of how free society works. Are you going to question my level of patriotism next? Please stick to the argument at hand and refrain from throwing accusations around about my level of understanding of this or that. Again I reiterate I am not advocating abandoning the Constitution altogether. I am not advocating massive restrictions on freedom of speech. I am not advocating thought control. I do understand the precarious nature of our freedoms and the potential perils of “tweaking” our right to free speech. I cannot make this any more clear. I am suggesting that a lot of USA citizens practically worship the US Constitution exactly as it stands today as being infallible, perfect, and a better blueprint for governance than any other in the world. I see this attitude as smacking of typical American arrogance, something which looks really ugly to the rest of the world. There is a difference between pride in one’s constitutional government and a better-than-the-rest-of-you attitude. I am saying that our Constitution is not divinely inspired; it was written by men; maybe it has flaws; it might need to be amended again someday.
Matthew Shepard was tied to a fencepost, beaten and left to die because he was gay. Murders motivated by hatred for the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity are not uncommon in the United States of Amercia. In our society the word “gay” is used in a derogatory manner. Most homophobic crimes go unreported as such. Intolerance and abuse of gays and lesbians is seen by many as being acceptable behavior. Fred Phelps and his clan routinely interrupt funerals using hate speech against “faggots” which is not only disrespectful to grieving families of fallen soldiers but also further desensitizes the population to hate speech and to hate crimes committed against gay men and women across the USA. I find this violence to be unacceptable. I am not entirely convinced that the framers of our Constitution would have seen the hate speech activities of Fred Phelps as something they wanted to protect. I’m not the only one who feels this way, yet I’m not offended that many of you believe wholeheartedly that Fred Phelps is acting entirely within his Consitutional Rights.
I agree that much of European law is based on the concept of rights being granted to commoners by the sovereignty. Personally, I do not find this situation to be so very scary, but I fully recognize its flaws and will agree it carries huge potential for abuse and human disaster. I completely understand how this concept of governance can frighten many Americans. Millions of people live happily in Europe. Their system works. It’s far from perfect. I’m just pointing out that already we are not as free in USA as maybe we think we are. I respectfully suggest that our obsessive fears of losing a fraction of our freedoms of speech or our rights to bear arms could very well be distracting us from the fact that many of our other freedoms and rights have already begun to fly out the window. I am not asking that we give up our Constitution and bow down to a king or queen. I am simply asking if there is some way we can improve upon the great system we already have. I am questioning the near-religious absolute worship, adoration and devotion to freedom of speech at all costs which I am seeing in a bunch of otherwise rational people around here. I don’t want to see our freedoms taken away so much as I would like to see a recognition amongst you that the cumulative effects of certain types of free hate speech can in fact precipitate crazy awful stuff like ethnic cleansing and hate crimes being committed against individuals who belong to certain minority groups. I am not convinced that the Brandenburg standard is sufficient in this day and age.
Will we continue as a society to kill each other, spew hatred at each other, and divide ourselves because of differences in race, politics, wealth, sexuality and theology? Will we fail to ever come together as a united people and live in peace and harmony? I do not demand that everyone agrees with my point of view. I just ask for my thoughts to be considered. If there is a better way, let’s find it. To me, the status quo in the USA doesn’t seem to be working very well. How can we make our nation better? Doing it without changing our laws, without limiting free speech and without amending the Constitution could be a good thing. In regards to the Westoboro Baptist Church and its activities outside of military and other funerals, maybe all we need to do is broaden our definition of harrassment.
Tabbie – as a Canadian, I would say I probably agree with you far more than your American friends on this thread. We have a bit of a love-hate relationship with your country because in some ways we are so alike, and so very different in other ways. Frankly, we are bewildered by the American attachment to guns and the “right to bear arms”. We don’t get that at all. Guns are only for killing -what’s so great about that? Maybe I’m missing something…I dated an American for almost 3 years, and he kept a loaded 45 automatic in our bedside drawer. I tried to find out from him why he did that, and never really got an answer.
However, the issue here is freedom of speech. This is a fine line in every country – we are all struggling to find the balance between freedom and respect. We have had some nasty fights in this country about that issue. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was written into our Constitution in 1982. We also have the Bill of Rights, which is not in the Constitution – it’s only a piece of legislation. They constantly conflict, especially on this subject. The Charter guarantees “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”; but the Bill of Rights is consistently ruled in favor of censorship. Then Canadians get “up in arms” (so to speak) and the ruling is then ruled unconstitutional. No written document is perfect, and often these documents are insufficient to determine modern issues, often because technology is way ahead of the law. The constitution here is considered a living organism – constantly growing and evolving. It is respected but nobody here thinks it’s infallible. We just had a major upgrade to the Constitution in 1982, and nobody faulted us for updating the original 1867 instrument.
That said, in Canada we tend to balance respect for individuals more heavily than in the US. I cannot see us tolerating a Phelps and his activities at funerals. That would probably be universally unacceptable to us. Yet I feel tremendous freedom to say whatever I want – I don’t feel censored. I think it’s because I don’t sprew hate and advocate violence, so censorship hasn’t come up. To me, it’s a no-brainer – that’s hate speech, pure and simple, and serves no legitimate public purpose.
Most people outside the US don’t get our right to bear arms. This was written into the constitution by a group of people who had risen up and by the force of arms liberated themselves from what they viewed as an unjust Britisih Monarch. There was much debate over this and there was much compromise. What Jefferson was trying to protect was the right of the people to defend themselves from an oppressive government, in effect, he wanted a right to revolution. This is the heart of the American feelings about the second amendment. Other countries whose past did not include a revolution do not see the need and only shake their head at the amount of person to person violence perpetrated with guns here. Many also feel that in much of America today, you cannot count on the police to do more than look for the perpetrators after a crime has happened and that defending your self, your family, your home and your possessions is ultimately up to the individual and keep weapons for that reason as well. It is a uniquely American ideology that is always difficult for others to understand.
That’s a good answer. At the risk of the Americans on this blog never speaking to me again, I would question the value of guns in modern society notwithstanding your history. It’s unfortunate that the violence has gotten so bad that people feel they need guns to protect themselves. But wasn’t it the idealizing of guns in the first place that led to the proliferation of violence? We have gun violence in Canada too, and it’s rising fast, but nowhere near the numbers in the US. I walk the city streets at night without fear (probably not for much longer though). I realize this thread isn’t about guns, but I really appreciate talking about it. It’s like the elephant in the room – nobody wants to discuss this politically sensitive issue.
Here in the US its a huge issue with vociferous debates on both sides. I am a gun owner and collector. The presence of guns though isn’t the cause of crime and violence. There is a T shirt that says “guns don’t kill people but they sure do help”. My grandfather lived in a very rural part of Florida, guns were viewed as tools. His pickup truck had a rifle rack with a .22 for rabbits and squirrels, a .30-06 for deer and a shotgun for turkeys. When he went into town or anywhere else he didn’t lock his truck and didn’t lock up the house. Nobody messed with his truck, his guns or his home because that was the nature of the community. I grew up in the suburbs of Atlanta and saw the the population rise by a factor of 10 and as it did, so did crime and violence. This happened in areas with more restrictive gun laws such as the city of Atlanta more than one of the suburbs that had a law requiring gun ownership, Kennesaw. Rather than raising violence and gun crimes, it reduced it. If you are looking to rob a house, are you going to the one place where everyone has to own a gun?
I’m not saying that our system is perfect. Ours has many flaws and I agree with several who have observed that we sometimes view our constitution with religious zeal. We are taught that it is something to be proud of even when it doesn’t really live up to the words on the paper.
There are many here who would like to change our gun laws in both directions, those who think they are more restrictive than the Bill of Rights calls for and those who think they are more lax than is safe or reasonable.
I think it would be very difficult for anyone to get a change into the Constitution of either the Right to Bear Arms or the Freedom of Speech. For better or worse, the most you will get is laws nibbling around the fringes that get trimmed back periodically.
Interesting. Especially since you mention Atlanta, and that’s where I was with my ex-boyfriend (and his bedside 45 auto). I have to say – I have my opinion on this subject, but I cannot be dogmatic. The older I get and the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. Since I am Canadian, I simply cannot impose my values on you. Thanks for a really cool and rational debate!
I’d argue that, should this be squelched, THIS would be an abuse of power.
I didn’t know how to decide or act on this, knowing that free speech could be eliminated, by any group deciding that anything that disagrees with it is hate speech, and then saying something goes from being “politically incorrect” to being illegal and suppressed.
(Don’t churches do this as much as they can within their own rules? Another UF and NY Times article, on leaving Scientology, refers to the “shunning” and “excommunication” and “disconnection” they practice on people who leave the fold and speak out about it. Wouldn’t they love to have legal suppression of free speech to work with?)
I didn’t know about the Brandenburg standard. This creating a disturbance at funerals can be “intent to provoke”, “disorderly conduct”, or “disturbing the peace”.
I didn’t know about the Brandenburg standard. This creating a disturbance at funerals can be “intent to provoke”, “disorderly conduct”, or “disturbing the peace”.
The “imminent lawless action” prong of the Brandenberg standard is taken literally to mean lawless action that occurs in a small enough time interval from when the speech is uttered to the crime being committed that was urged by the speech that an officer of the law would not be able to be summoned in time to maintain order. In cases such as public gatherings where police are already there to help with crowd control, it is basically impossible to breach the standard short of starting a full-scale riot.
American law is kind of absolutist about a lot of things. You can get off a charge of murder if they screw up some technical detail during your arrest. Free speech seems to trump almost any other right. It’s always really black and white.
Up here in Canada, our constitution and charter of rights throws in the word “reasonable” a lot. As in, you have a right to the reasonable exercise of your freedoms, in such a way as they do not interfere with the rights of others to their freedoms. A reasonable right to freedom of speech means that speech that is designed to silence, harm, or disturb people is not necessarily protected. It comes down to the question, “could a reasonable person defend the statement in question, or can it only be defended if we privilege free speech over everything else?”
We balance the rights of individuals against the rights of other people.
It sounds like a reasonable approach to me, but I’ll probably get minced to bits for saying it :D