And it's unusual, but I agree with LAT, "The Right to Speak Offensively":
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that sorely tests the principle, articulated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. nearly a century ago, that "we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe."More details at the link.
The case involves the Westboro Baptist Church, a deranged anti-gay religious group that routinely shows up at the funerals of American soldiers to express its bizarre belief that U.S. combat deaths are divine retribution for America's tolerance of homosexuality. In 2006, the group picketed the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, a Marine killed in Iraq. The protesters held signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "You're Going to Hell' and "Semper fi Fags."
Snyder's father sued the church for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and other civil wrongs, but a lower court held that the picketers were protected under the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court is now being asked to reverse that decision.
The justices may be tempted to rule against the protesters out of understandable sympathy for Snyder's father. They should resist the temptation. Allowing even private figures to recover damages for distress caused by the political or religious speech of others would be a dramatic departure from the court's protection of free expression no matter how offensive. And it would have reverberations in settings far removed from military funerals.
The Westboro people are pretty much freaks, but they have the right to spew their hatred.
3 comments:
As despicable as I find these people I support their right to be offensive. Once we start finding speech offensive we will force it underground where it cannot be refuted. It will gain adherents because there is no opposing argumentation to challenge it.
Free speech was in the First Amendment for a reason. All citizens have a right to speak their mind and expect those who disagree with them to speak theirs. How else is a free society going to deal with bad ideas if they cannot be debated openly? Free speech allows the holder of ideas to have an outlet to express them and therefore have an affect thereby lessening the need for violent revolution. It also lets society know who has those ideas.
The biggest mistake we could make is restricting free speech or trying to call some speech "hate" speech. Once it starts the restriction will find no end and the very people who thought it was a good idea will have theirs restricted when power changes as it always does.
And yet Muslims get a pass in suppressing speech when they claim to be offended at so-called insults against Islam. Where does the LA Times on the death threats against Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, who was warned by the FBI to go into deep hiding lest Islamists kill her? (Story here.)
I take the same position you do on the Westboro case, but I long ago gave up expecting even standards to be applied for free speech by the political class, including its media component (which is pretty much all media).
I defend these fools right to free speech but also would defend the right to hit them with a stick.
Post a Comment