Unprotected Speech

· Thursday, March 11, 2010

The Supreme Court has decided to take a case that may change the boundaries for types of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The case was brought by a Maryland man whose son's 2006 funeral was picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Members of the "church" consist of "pastor" Fred W. Phelps Sr., and his family who preach a false doctrine that basically claims American soldiers are dying in combat because of this country's increasingly tolerant attitude toward homosexuals. "Semper Fi F---" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" are two of the more outrageous signs displayed by members of the Westboro church at services for some of our war dead.

I put "pastor" and "church" in quotations on purpose. Others -- one thinks especially of "pastors" who preached segregation and barred blacks from their "churches" at one time -- have caused ridicule to be directed at believers in God, but the Phelps case may descend to an even lower level of evil.

The history of the case is this: a jury in Baltimore awarded Albert Snyder more than $10 million in damages. The amount was reduced on appeal and the case was eventually thrown out by the 4th Circuit Court in Richmond. That panel of three judges said the picket signs could not be reasonably understood to be referring directly to Snyder and his late son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder. The court said as distasteful as Phelps' rhetoric is, the expressions are part of a national debate on homosexuality and so it is protected speech.

I called Nat Hentoff, who is regarded by many as an authority on the First Amendment and a fierce defender of all sorts of outrageous speech. Hentoff believes speech that might be construed as leading a person to act "is a clear disturbance of the peace at a religious or any kind of event" and thus "is not protected by the First Amendment."

Hentoff is right. The venue for military funerals is not a college campus or a political rally. Very often it is a church or synagogue. Even if it is a secular venue, the sexual behavior or orientations of dead soldiers and their families are unknown to the Phelpses, who are using a family's grief to advance a judgmental attitude that is rejected in the Scripture in which they claim to believe. Someone should remind them that the Devil could quote Scripture, too.

Several years ago, members of the Phelps family picketed a prayer breakfast in Topeka at which I was the main speaker. Sitting next to me was then-Kansas governor (now Health and Human Services secretary) Kathleen Sebelius. I was vaguely familiar with the Phelpses but had never seen them up close and I asked the governor about them. I recall her saying, "Oh, don't worry about them. They picket everybody." At first I found them faintly amusing, but upon reflection I consider them deeply offensive, un-American and anti-Christian.

My speech was not curtailed and neither was theirs. The big difference was that the event at which I spoke was quite different from a funeral. Suggesting that a member of the military died because God is judging America for the way it treats homosexuals is worse than outrageous. It is the moral equivalent of crying "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, which by the way is not protected speech.

The Supreme Court was right to take this case. It should rule in favor of the Snyder family and put a stop to Fred Phelps and his spiritually corrupt family. They are by no decent standard serving God. In fact, quite a good case could be made that they are in service to God's adversary.

(c) 2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

MichaelSSEC

Picketing a funeral. It's hard to imagine a more outrageous, deliberately offensive venue for a demonstration. The very notion that such a thing is protected speech runs anathema to the concept of free speech itself.

Free speech is not absolute. As Mr Thomas points out, one cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (unless of course, there is an actual fire). Most people are familiar with that restriction, but I daresay the reasons behind it do not get aired often enough.

The results of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater are predictable enough. Panic ensues, people get trampled. It can be assumed that a number of patrons will be elderly, or children. Either way, they are most likely to be injured or killed during the resultant stampede for the exits. The scare might even touch off heart attacks and other ailments unnecessarily. These things are acceptable risks when there's an actual fire because the main thing is to escape the fire, but they are totally unacceptable risks just to let some wiseguy commit a prank. If we recognized that as free speech, we would be wrapping irresponsible prankster behavior in the austere veneer of Constitutional protections, and enshrining public endangerment wrongly in the hallowed halls of the Bill of Rights.

Now imagine a funeral. Any funeral is a traumatic time, filled to bursting with inconsolable grief, heartbreak, and suffering. That's true at any funeral. But a funeral for a service member who has died while protecting this great nation usually means parents are lying their beloved child to rest, and that is simply a class of grief unto itself. Can there be any greater pain?

Yet, these imbeciles at Phelps' "church" would hijack that scene, twist it for their own selfish ends, inject their own bizarre political views into the private grief of families, and intrude where they are not wanted. Nobody has a "right" to do anything of the kind. All rights stop where another's rights begin, and just as we have reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes so we assert the same at funerals.

Nor is this restraint in any way suppressing the free speech of the mental defectives in the Phelps cult. They are free to spew their lunacy elsewhere, in places that merely annoy others without intruding disgustingly on the private grief of families laying loved ones to that final rest. The only astonishing things here are the facts that the Phelpses would attempt such an evil action at all -- and that this case had to be brought before the SCOTUS in the first place. It is a self-evident violation of all human decency.

Posted March 11, 2010 at 5:59:52 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund