The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right under the 1st Amendment to picket funerals of soldiers and display signs such as, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", "God Hates Fags", and "God Hates Jews". In Canada and European countries, their signs would be prohibited as hate speech. In the U. S., they are protected as free speech.
The protection stems from a strict legalistic interpretation of the U. S. Constitution regarding freedom of speech, although the U. S. does place some limits on it. Initially, it may be limited by considerations of place, time, and manner. You may not, for example, shout your message in a quiet neighborhood at 3:00 in the morning. You may not be able to say what you want in your workplace or on a university campus. You may not incite a riot or violence against a group or individual, where the prospect of violence is imminent.
However, if the violence is not imminent, you are in a public place, and not interfering with others, you may spout hate speech as much as you like, attacking race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
I wonder whether this "freedom" really serves the United States, or is even what the framers of the Constitution intended.
Other countries realize that attacking diverse groups because of race, ethnicity, or religion divides the society and leads to group animosity. Attacking someone for gender or sexual orientation is degrading. It's hard to see that allowing this with impunity promotes in any way a stable, harmonious society, or "promotes the general welfare", which is a principal responsibility of laws and government.
The argument that hate speech may be prohibited only if produces "imminent" violence, but is protected if it only contributes to "eventual" violence seems flawed. In either case, the harm is potentially the same.
Samuel Alito, the lone voice of dissent in the 8-1 ruling, and a conservative / freedom of speech advocate, has answered for his vote:
ReplyDelete"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case." He's also written: "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes."
I'm guessing Alito sees the Snyders as private people who have done nothing to invite Phelps' b.s. If they are being harassed, don't they have some right to seek protection from this?
@JJ I don't see the actions of certain JWs during the Second World War, however you want to perceive them, as relevant to the discussion. We don't live in that time. Indeed our society and what it values is different today.
I agree with Alito. Freedom of Speech is not absolute, and should not trump other rights and freedoms, such as being secure in our homes.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, freedom of expression is included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and opinions, religious beliefs, and private speech are protected; but why should someone be allowed to publicly attack another on the basis of attributes that we agree to respect, and for the purpose of promoting group hatred? How does this serve a public purpose?
Those attacked should be able to go to court and get relief.