The First Amendment’s free speech and assembly protections mean nothing unless we are willing to afford them to the most reprehensible and disturbing speech.
So, while I despise everything that the Westboro Baptist Church stands for and find their use of soldiers’ funerals deplorable, I have to applaud the Supreme Court’s ruling today:
In an 8-1 vote, Supreme Court Justices voted in favor of the Westboro Church, ruling that the protesters are protected by the First Amendment, no matter how offensive their anti-gay, anti-military message might be to some.
The church and Fred Phelps were being sued by Maryland resident Albert Snyder, the father of the late Matthew Snyder, a soldier who died in Iraq in 2006. Albert Snyder cited “emotional distress” as the reason for his lawsuit. Phelps and his family protested at Matthew Snyder’s funeral with signs that read “God Hates America” and “Semper Fi Fags”.
Nothing that the church has done or does can be defended or should be defended. Its members and views are offensive and hateful. But nothing the church does should be the subject of government interference.
Do we really want to follow the French example on this and prosecute the speaker of hateful speech? Does an anti-Semitic or racist rant warrant a jail sentence of as long “as six months in prison and up to €22,500, or $31,000, in fines”? Should Mel Gibson or Michael Richards have gone to jail, as they likely would have under French law, which “makes it a crime to incite racial hatred”? And who gets to decide what inciting hatred means?
American law, thankfully, protects our rights to be idiots. I prefer it that way.
- Send me an e-mail.
- Read poetry at The Subterranean.
- Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
- Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.
Hank Kalet 