"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire
The Supreme Court has recently decided to hear the Westboro Case, a case which may change the limits to our free speech.
The case involves Albert Snyder, the plaintiff, suing Westboro Baptist Church, the defendant, of "defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress", for "protesting" (holding such signs as "God hates fags") when Snyder was holding his military son's (Matthew) funeral.
In lower courts, Snyder won, and Westboro had to pay up 11 million. It went to higher courts, which determined that in fact, Westboro was rightfully protected under the first amendment, and thus were immune to the charges and that Snyder himself has to pay Westboro 16k in legal fees. The Supreme Court has decided to review the case, likely due to the Westboro's national fame of being homosexuality hating bigots. (On a side note, Bill O' Riley decided to cover all of Snyder's fees and called out Westboro).
Now, I think that the entire Westboro Church is a mockery to religion, and just an organized way for horrible people to come together and spew their hate on national TV. The founder, Fred Phelps, is notorious for anti-gay protests, even calling terrorist attacks and disasters as events from God to punish a homosexuality-accepting society (and he got 30% of the vote when he ran for Gov. of Kansas, too). The adults of the Church are despicable who I hope were brainwashed into following the cult. The children have no choice to follow since the church probably lectures them on their "beliefs" 24/7, with the adults forcing them to volunteer in their protests. However, I do not believe they should be convicted of their charges.
First of all, they did nothing wrong except being ******bags, and if being a ******bag was a crime, then Barry Bonds would have been jailed a long time ago, and Spencer Pratt would now been executed. They were well within the bounds of their legal right to protest, including being at least 100 feet away from a military funeral. They were not directly targeting Matthew Snyder (although it may seem like it) but the homosexual community, the military, and basically everyone else except them. They do this sort of protest on at least a weekly basis, so I doubt they will take the time and get to know the person before interrupting their funeral. They weren't fighting words, just stupid words, and it doesn't fall under the "imminent lawless action" since a violation of the law wasn't imminent and likely (unless someone wanted to fight, but that didn't happen).
99.9% of people have the common decency to know not to protest outside a funeral, especially to know not to spew words of hate. It's just that .1% such as the Phelps family which lack any sort of respect. That .1% shouldn't determine the actions of everyone else, and therefore I'm against any amendment that bans protests outside of funerals, since it also eliminates all the "good" ones such as peacefully protesting to pull troops out, as well as strictly violating the first amendment. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Snyder and forces Westboro to pay the $11 million, it will essentially be a sign saying that we can say anything we want "as long as we don't hurt any feelings", and that's not good at all. Even though punishing Westboro for being ******bags might seem like a good thing, it does not make up for further restrictions to our free speech.
If Westboro didn't already have a negative reputation, then this case will have never made it to the Supreme Court. It's similar to anti-abortion groups protesting outside abortion clinics or PETA protesting outside animal-testing facilities, it's just that (I'm going to generalize) most people dislike Westboro Baptist Church (although it can be argued a lot of people hate PETA too). Westboro just wants attention, knowing that anti-gay rallies incite anger in people, so the best way to destroy Westboro is by ignoring them, not forcing them to pay $11 million.
I would look really bad if I censored this picture after advocating free speech.
The case involves Albert Snyder, the plaintiff, suing Westboro Baptist Church, the defendant, of "defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress", for "protesting" (holding such signs as "God hates fags") when Snyder was holding his military son's (Matthew) funeral.
In lower courts, Snyder won, and Westboro had to pay up 11 million. It went to higher courts, which determined that in fact, Westboro was rightfully protected under the first amendment, and thus were immune to the charges and that Snyder himself has to pay Westboro 16k in legal fees. The Supreme Court has decided to review the case, likely due to the Westboro's national fame of being homosexuality hating bigots. (On a side note, Bill O' Riley decided to cover all of Snyder's fees and called out Westboro).
Now, I think that the entire Westboro Church is a mockery to religion, and just an organized way for horrible people to come together and spew their hate on national TV. The founder, Fred Phelps, is notorious for anti-gay protests, even calling terrorist attacks and disasters as events from God to punish a homosexuality-accepting society (and he got 30% of the vote when he ran for Gov. of Kansas, too). The adults of the Church are despicable who I hope were brainwashed into following the cult. The children have no choice to follow since the church probably lectures them on their "beliefs" 24/7, with the adults forcing them to volunteer in their protests. However, I do not believe they should be convicted of their charges.
First of all, they did nothing wrong except being ******bags, and if being a ******bag was a crime, then Barry Bonds would have been jailed a long time ago, and Spencer Pratt would now been executed. They were well within the bounds of their legal right to protest, including being at least 100 feet away from a military funeral. They were not directly targeting Matthew Snyder (although it may seem like it) but the homosexual community, the military, and basically everyone else except them. They do this sort of protest on at least a weekly basis, so I doubt they will take the time and get to know the person before interrupting their funeral. They weren't fighting words, just stupid words, and it doesn't fall under the "imminent lawless action" since a violation of the law wasn't imminent and likely (unless someone wanted to fight, but that didn't happen).99.9% of people have the common decency to know not to protest outside a funeral, especially to know not to spew words of hate. It's just that .1% such as the Phelps family which lack any sort of respect. That .1% shouldn't determine the actions of everyone else, and therefore I'm against any amendment that bans protests outside of funerals, since it also eliminates all the "good" ones such as peacefully protesting to pull troops out, as well as strictly violating the first amendment. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Snyder and forces Westboro to pay the $11 million, it will essentially be a sign saying that we can say anything we want "as long as we don't hurt any feelings", and that's not good at all. Even though punishing Westboro for being ******bags might seem like a good thing, it does not make up for further restrictions to our free speech.
If Westboro didn't already have a negative reputation, then this case will have never made it to the Supreme Court. It's similar to anti-abortion groups protesting outside abortion clinics or PETA protesting outside animal-testing facilities, it's just that (I'm going to generalize) most people dislike Westboro Baptist Church (although it can be argued a lot of people hate PETA too). Westboro just wants attention, knowing that anti-gay rallies incite anger in people, so the best way to destroy Westboro is by ignoring them, not forcing them to pay $11 million.
I would look really bad if I censored this picture after advocating free speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment