Constitution protects all speech, not just nice speech
April 4th, 2010, 12:00 am · 3 Comments · posted by Thomas J. Lucente Jr.
Veterans groups and others on the political right are outraged at an appellate court decision that ordered the father of a dead Marine to pay the court costs for a group of wackos who protested at the Marine’s funeral.
Get over it. It is the father who dishonored the memory of his dead son by trying to suppress the free speech of others.
Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder was just 20 years old when he was killed in a vehicle accident in Iraq on March 3, 2006.
Fred W. Phelps Sr. is a religious nut job and founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., which is notorious for its anti-gay protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers and Marines.
Phelps and his equally nutty family and followers believe that natural disasters and terrorist attacks are God’s punishment for a society that tolerates homosexuality.
In fact, he claims to have conducted more than 43,000 protests since 1991 (a ridiculous claim because that would be more than six protests every day for 19 years) “opposing the fag lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth.”
When Phelps read about Snyder’s private funeral at St. John Catholic Church in Westminster, Md., he gathered up two of his daughters and four of his grandchildren and headed to Maryland.
Phelps and his kin carried signs with such messages as “God Hates the USA,” “America is doomed,” “Pope in hell,” “Semper fi fags,” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.” The so-called demonstration violated no local laws and the protesters obeyed police orders to keep at a certain distance from the church.
After the funeral, Phelps continued to harangue the Snyder family on his Web site at www.godhatesfags.com.
As a Catholic, a war veteran and a retired soldier, not to mention a human being, I find Phelps to be a disgusting person. So I understand why Snyder’s father, Albert Snyder, would be upset. What parent wouldn’t be?
The father sued Phelps and won a $10.9 million judgment, which was later reduced to $5 million. Phelps appealed and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict and ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Phelps for legal expenses. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case during its next term, which begins Oct. 4.
It seems everyone is in agreement that Phelps’ conduct is repulsive as are his hateful and decidedly un-Christian beliefs.
However — and on this issue we, as a free society, cannot afford to compromise — free speech isn’t meant to protect nice speech. The reality is, if we want to live in a free society, we have to tolerate all speech, including Phelps’ hateful diatribes.
Like it or not, Phelps is speaking on matters of public concern, i.e., gays in the military and the political and moral conduct of the U.S. government and its citizens. That is exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment was meant to protect. Political speech is sacrosanct under the First Amendment. Sadly, veterans groups don’t seem to understand that point.
“This is a travesty at best and borders on the obscene,” said Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., of Sussex, Wis. “The irony in this whole situation is that the blood and sacrifice of our nation’s heroes have enabled this group to spread their message of hate. Yet, they celebrate when one of America’s best pays the ultimate sacrifice preserving that right of free speech.”
Similar statements were issued by other veterans groups.
There is something perversely ironic in claiming that our heroes died defending the free speech of Americans and yet demand that such speech not be used against those same heroes.
Phelps and his mindless minions need to be ignored, not sued or prosecuted, because the alternative to protection of speech is either arbitrary or blanket denial of same. Giving the government the power to regulate political speech based on content is something that cannot be tolerated.
As for Matthew Snyder, he took an oath to defend the Constitution and swore to give his life if necessary in that defense. That includes the First Amendment.
I wonder how he would feel if his death were used as an excuse to curb that right.
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
As much as I despise Phelps and his carnival of moral putrescence, I have to agree. We can no more deny his right to speak his mind (however small that mind may be) than we can deny his right to worship his hateful and vile deity, to have a trial by jury, freedom from arbitrary search and seizure, or protection against self-incrimination.
Even if you don’t consider the Bill of Rights to apply to those you despise from a moral point of view, it’s worth considering it from a practical point of view: Any time you take away its protections from someone you despise, you’re creating a precedent that can be used to take those protections away from yourself and those you love.
I think there is a vast difference between free speech and harassment. Just as the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights does not protect fraudulent speech, slander, or libel, I don’t believe it protects harassment. Recently, several teens were driven to suicide as a result of bullying. From what I understand, most of the bullying was not physical but verbal, consisting of intimidating text messages, stalking, and public ridicule. In one particularly vicious case, felony charges have been brought against the students who continually tortured their victim through an onslaught of verbal abuse until she took her own life. Is this the kind of behavior that our Founding Fathers sought to protect in drafting the Bill of Rights? Do we really want this type of cruelty to be enshrined in law? Likewise, does the obvious harassment of grieving families deserve the protection of the U.S. Constitution? I don’t think so.
The politcal left was upset too.