The Freedom of Hate Speech

The Supreme Court is hearing a case this fall about free speech, something very near and dear to my heart.

It involves funerals for soldiers in the armed forces killed in the line of duty, something also of concern to me, especially since more and more of my friends have sons and daughters who are either there or contemplating that as a career possibility in the current economy.

It also involves the fringe Westboro Baptist Church and it’s leader, Fred Phelps, who engage in protests, most recently at the funerals of fallen soldiers.

So they show up at funerals to protest. Originally, it was just the funerals of AIDS victims. Now it’s at military funerals they appear and hold up signs not opposing the military involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan, but instead with trendy slogans like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” or the perennial “God Hates Fags” . Their theory is that the god in which they believe is causing these soldiers to be killed because of the United States “tolerance” of homosexuality.

This is undoubtedly obnoxious and upsetting to lots of people, but it’s easy enough to ignore; just don’t read those articles, or click right past them on the internet or with the TV remote.

Until they show up at your son’s funeral with their hatemongering. Then, their actions become outrageous and some of the most indecent things that have occurred in modern times in the name of religion.

Most local governments who have encountered this group and others of their ilk have established rules regarding protests around cemeteries. They’re required to stay outside of the cemetery, usually on public property or in designated areas, and most have restrictions on loudspeaker and other equipment to minimize the disruption to the service.

Nonetheless, when nerves are frayed and on edge, simply driving by these people with their vengeful – and largely irrelevant -- signs adds outrage to the family’s grief, especially since it targets not the individual who died but some broader societal circumstance or belief with which the deceased may have had no involvement.

It makes about as much sense as a cousin showing up at your wedding and objecting because her marriage didn't work out and she got divorced.

It so outraged one family that they sued the individuals in the group for both invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They got an award of $10 million, which was then overturned by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, clearing the way for the case to go to the Supreme Court.

I understand the hurt they feel from this decision. Unfortunately, it is the right thing to do to support the greater good of our Country, the very thing that their son was fighting to support and preserve.

Interestingly enough, the Westboro Baptist people, who are primarily from one family, are pleased with the appeal (although presumably not with the original verdict) because, according to Mr. Phelp’s daughter, "We get to preach to the conscience of doomed America."

The 4th Circuit noted that the speech in which they engaged is especially repugnant and tasteless, especially given the circumstances under which the protest was staged, but noted that it is absolutely protected by the United States Constitution, given that it was the expression of opinion regarding a significant public policy.

I’m paraphrasing, not quoting. For the whole opinion, go to http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf.

As much as I despise this group and what they stand for, unfortunately they are right in their claim that they can publish their propaganda as long as they comply with the rules as far as time, place and manner. If we, as a society, begin to limit the ability of even the most offensive individuals to engage in free speech, pretty soon we’re limiting those that don’t like the President or the Congress or the local City Council.

They absolutely ought to be allowed to protest – in the areas somewhat removed from the grieving families and with limitations on their sound equipment – to their heart’s content.

It’s questionable whether our current Supreme Court, staffed as it is with recent appointees who have shown a propensity to sometimes ignore the underlying principles of the Constitution in order to take the more popular route of banning the actions of this similar groups.

I hope that they do not do that. These people must be allowed to continue to spew their hate, just as many other groups are allowed to spread their message regardless of whether or not we agree with them.

Remember, this group is at least nominally a church, preaching their doctrine. Start limiting their ability and it’s not much of a step downward to approving the sermons that are permissible on Sunday mornings or banning certain curricula in Vacation Bible School.

Or limiting what the Tea Party folks can say at their rallies.

What I do wish would happen is that their goal could be denied them. They want a public platform. Instead, I’d rather see a summary opinion by the Court that simply supports the 4th Circuit in
one line. Less, if they can do it, although it must be remembered that Supreme Court Justices were once lawyers and brevity isn’t necessarily their strong point.  There are, however, pages and pages of opions that simply read "Affirmed" without further comment by the Court.

Follow this Summary Opinion by a virtual news blackout on the whole sordid affair, or keep reporting so generic as to limit the publicity on the specifics of what this group stands for, and a reasonable outcome can be achieved.

In that way, we both uphold the principle that is important while denying the hate that is so reprehensible.