A Shot Across the Bow
March 6, 2011Imagine trying to use an old rotary phone dial on a new cell phone, or Ford Model A tires on a new BMW. Sometimes, this is what I feel we are trying to do, when adapting notions and laws from over 200 years ago and trying to apply them to a society gone slightly mad.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church, a small group of lunatics known best for disrupting the funerals of soldiers by congregating with signs such as “God Hates Fags” and “Dead Soldiers are Good Soldiers”. I have already had several animated conversations with friends who side with the Court and take, apparently, the right of “Freedom of Speech” to be an absolute. They see the caveat to that right, that one can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater, as not an analogy but a specific exception.
To me, it is clear what our forefathers had in mind. That the freedom to express one’s opinion shall not be squelched by any government, and in particular the right to speak out against said government. The theater exception says, in theory, that there is an exception to free speech that incites violence or creates an unnecessary danger to other people. I see no difference in that scenario and the egregious act of displaying such hateful signs, and yelling equally hateful slurs, to families burying loved ones.
The folks that cry “Freedom” at every turn seem to hold themselves in high esteem. That they are above it all, on a higher intellectual level than the rest of us, willing to endure such unpleasant folks as the Westboro monkeys, in the name of our high ideals. Yet…do not the freedoms afforded to us as Americans come with any sense of discipline? Is an absolute free-for-all what we’re looking for? Is there anyone who thinks that the thoughtful men who drafted our Bill of Rights and Constitution, would support the Westboro Baptist Church?
Look…I’m not saying their opinion should be muffled or denied, just moved to a less antagonistic venue. Their actions seek violence from those they speak against. It strains the good nature of people who know better than they, and eventually it will cause an act of violence. I can tell you without hesitation, I would not tolerate their presence at the funeral of one of my loved ones and would do whatever necessary to remove them. Have your opinion, have your posters and signs, but have them a good distance away from a funeral service. People have the right to an expectation of privacy and respect at a burial.
We are a country awash in our own sense of “freedom”. It seems as though it’s never enough. Is there anything…anything…that is off limits in this country? We have become a nation that tolerates everything in the name of political correctness. I have to believe that if an anti-gay crowd was gathering at homosexual funerals, the Supreme Court would have gone another way. At the very least, there would be hoards of opposing views at those same protests, and the ACLU would be tripping over itself getting lawyers to the scene. Imagine a group that hates women showing up at any funeral of a female and espousing similar views against women. How about a pro-rape group assembling at the funerals of victims of sexual assaults? Maybe a small contingent of pro-child molesters arriving at funerals for children?
Watch now, as the Westboro Baptists flaunt their new found power bestowed upon them by the high-thinkers on the Court. Yes…we are a nation built on high ideals…ideals paid for with blood and treasure, and because of that high cost, we owe it to ourselves and our culture to take a long, hard look at the possibility of drawing a line in the sand now and then. Ironically, it is these very soldiers who defended the “right” of a group like Westboro to congregate and promote whatever warped view of the world they have taken on.
I believe our forefathers would gladly return quickly to their graves if they could return momentarily and see the country as it is today. A visit, by the way, I would not wish on anyone from that long ago.
CThompson
Mar 6, 2011
The SJC ruled it was a public place. However, some statutory limits have been put in place in some states to protect those at graveside.(1,000 feet) which will undoubtedly be challenged.
The one thing that this court was spared as having to factor into their deliberations is the rash of homicides that have NOT occurred against these _____.(no words can describe “the Phelps of the world.”)
If such statutory limits were overturned, what is to stop an aggrieved loved one from killing an attacker while under such a “brutal and malevolent attack?” ……Find a jury that would convict Albert Snyder.
(It’s just a reality, that amongst those who feel they are not protected by the law are some who will protect themselves, in spite of the law.)
Karl Zahn
Mar 7, 2011
NH has already created a law which, I believe, calls for 300 feet from the service. It may be 300 yards….either way, it’s not enough. This is Hate Speech, not Free Speech. Get a group together yelling the “N” word at the funerals of African Americans and see how fast the Supreme Court steps in. I agree with you, also, that violence will soon be a result….exactly what Westboro wants to happen. You’re right, as well, that no fair jury would convict a “Mr. Snyder” in that instance.
CaptDMO
Mar 7, 2011
I have to agree with the ruling.
The concept-put into words- put fourth by the Constitution isn’t “200 years old”, it’s MUCH older than that. It does not apply to “Thee but not me”, no matter WHAT (ie.Mr. O’Reilly) may delusionally opine.
A poke in the nose, or 3000 yard emotional zone restrictions need not be examined, which is NOT to say the “doctrine” of “Them groceries ain’t fer sale” is invalid.
Bear in mind the same principals, AND Constitution, apply to continuing idiocy of the media (news and internet) “Fairness Doctrine” lie, once it’s inevitably “proclaimed” a “new and improved” law of the land, then promptly abused, by folks unqualified and unauthorized, to opine or write the laws of the land.
Karl Zahn
Mar 7, 2011
I respect your opinion, but disagree with the ruling. What Westboro does is Hate Speech. I assume, then, you would support the KKK gathering at African-American funerals and yelling “Nigger”, or “God hates niggers”. O.K. with you?
CThompson
Mar 8, 2011
CaptDMO
With all due respect. You put together five sentences in your post and, except for the first sentence of agreement, you provide NO CLARITY as to any further point you attempted to make.
Try again, with a version that does not require deciphering.
Respectfully,
CThompson
conserv-ed
Mar 8, 2011
I agree Karl. If you place dynamite near a flame like WBC at a funeral, who is to blame, if it goes Boom.
I submit, the system that allows it, at close proximity, is to blame. The system is to my thinking is the State constitution and not the federal government. See Article 10.
I believe in free speech as the constitution says but in the context of inciting violence due to the close proximity? No! The states can tighten this by adding distance as we did in NH.
There must be separation, just like in Wisconsin, sufficient to keep violence from breaking out between the Union protesters and the Tea Party.
I believe Distance is the key! It must be far enough away not to ignite mayhem and violence and is subjective thus any distances should be “no less than” in nature but authorities can set greater distance when violence is of concern.
If I can hear them chant hate at a funeral then it is too close. That includes along the funeral route as well.
Karl Zahn
Mar 8, 2011
Can’t disagree with any of that. I too, think distance is key. I also think the Court passed an opportunity to try and better define “Hate Speech”. Expect more cases and also, an episode of violence bourne from a Westboro protest.
NH has taken steps and I feel it is probably best a State issue. Still, the States may look to the Feds for leadership in issues such as these, and I believe this ruling sends a dangerous message.