Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the free-speech rights of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at the funerals of soldiers. Glenn Beck and others argue that free speech is free speech and must be defended, especially the most reprehensible, detestable speech.I get that argument but it's not like all speech is completely unregulated. Take the 'yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater' example. That's free speech of the worst kind and yet the court regulates the time and venue where you can use it. There is nothing wrong, for instance, with yelling "FIRE" as loudly as you like in the middle of a cow pasture or an empty theater. The court has held that provocative, controversial speech has appropriate times and venues.
A similar ruling could be made here. As much as I detest Fred Phelps and his inbred, retarded followers, I support their right to be obnoxious, reprehensible degenerates through speech, just not in a way that directly hinders a private family from grieving during the burial of a loved one. This speaks to the issue of the family's Constitutional right to pursue happiness. I would without hesitation support this groups right to protest, march, and say whatever they like anytime and anywhere else in America, but they should not be allowed to disrupt a family's funeral observance.
All speech, especially detestable speech, should be free, but time and place can be limited.
5 comments:
I think your take is pretty close to right Ed. While no one could think that these clowns are advancing their "cause" by their actions the pain they can cause to grieving families would seem to outweigh any completely unrestrained 1st Amendment rights. I wish this court respected the rest of the constitution as much. Four of them think the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.
These Phelpsians are a bunch of clowns! They get off trying to upstage grief stricken families and friends. Seems to me they do more harm than good. If I remember correctly aren't Christians supposed to attract people to Christ instead of push them away? Maybe I missed that lesson in first grade sunday school. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. This is strictly grabbing attention for their degenerative agenda.
Exactly, Reid. Imagine how a real Baptist must react to this slime-pond calling itself a church of their denomination.
Nobody thinks they're more reprehensible than I do but just to play devil's advocate for a minute....doesn't freedom of speech have everything to do with the right to grab attention for your degenerate agenda as long as you don't endanger or otherwise threaten them?
I think the founding fathers never envisioned a moment when fellow Americans would upstage someone else at a funeral. I think freedom of spech was intended to allow us a voice to the governmennt without fear of reprisal and retribution. I think the press can print as they see fit w/o being liable or w/o slandering as covered by freedom of the press. That freedom, however, doesnt give them the right to run amok among the people doing what they please.
Post a Comment