So a Facebook friend from the small Florida town I lived in for 2 years posted this the other day:
Quote:
|
So the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that you have the right, under the First Amendment, to protest military funerals... I invite you to start your protest in my front yard, then we can see if your First Amendment is better than my Second Amendment
|
I decide to see what has their panties in a wad and find the story behind it. (Old news, maybe, but new to me.)
Quote:
Westboro Baptist Church wins Supreme Court case for right to protest military funerals
Compiled by Ian Saleh
Washington Post Staff
Thursday, March 3, 2011; 4:32 PM
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church on Wednesday. As Robert Barnes reported:
The First Amendment protects a fringe church's anti-gay protests at military funerals, a nearly unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a powerful opinion that spoke to the nation's tolerance for even hateful public speech.
The court's most liberal and most conservative justices joined in a decision likely to define the term. It writes a new chapter in the court's findings that freedom of speech is so central to the nation that it protects cruel and unpopular protests - even, in this case, at the moment of a family's most profound grief.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that Westboro Baptist Church's picketing at fallen soldiers' funerals "is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible." But he said the reaction may not be "punishing the speaker."
Discussion: A rare look into Westboro Baptist Church
The case dealt with the willingness of Americans to tolerate even hateful speech. As Peyton Craighill explained:
A poll last summer from the AP, GfK and the National Constitution Center found that by a very large margin people believe that free speech rights should be protected "even if they take positions that seem deeply offensive to most people." Fully 70 percent sided with unfettered free speech rights and only 28 percent said that people should have the right to say what they believe, except when those statements might be deeply offensive.
The case involves a tiny church that has made a practice of demonstrating at funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in action, reasoning that military deaths are God's retribution for the expanding acceptance of homosexuality.
Their demonstrations have featured signs that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "God Hates Fags." It might be a stretch to find many people who would agree with this line of reasoning or the appropriateness of such a venue for spreading their word. But a nearly unanimous Supreme Court ruled that such demonstrations are protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Justice Samuel Alito was the only dissenting judge in the 8-1 ruling. As Robert Barnes reported:
Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s muscular dissent that members of the Westboro Baptist Church "brutally attacked" a fallen Marine and his family by protesting at his funeral marked the second time in a year Alito has stood alone in a First Amendment case.
Eight justices of the Supreme Court on Wednesday said that no matter how hurtful the speech employed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, the First Amendment protected them from having to pay damages to the grieving father they targeted.
Alito said they were all wrong.
Alito's condemnatory dissent said the Constitution's guarantee of free speech did not allow members of the fringe church to protest the funeral of Albert Snyder's fallen Marine son Matthew and "brutalize" the family with their lewd and cruel messages.
|
I find it ironic that these conservatives are upset with this for a couple of reasons. One, I always thought the conservative would fight tooth and nail for every constitutional principle. And secondly, these "friends" are anti-gay, anti-abortion, good Christians. Although my politics may be different, I've always attempted to respect their beliefs. The FB statement really pushed my buttons, not because I disagree with them, but because it seems to tell a story that is not necessarily the Christian way. It feels hypocritical to me.
Personally, I still haven't come to a conclusion as to where I stand. While I do believe strongly that protest should be an option, I have walked into an abortion clinic with peaceful protesters out front holding up those horrific signs that the pro-lifers tend to enjoy. Not a pleasant sight prior to enduring an extremely unpleasant and traumatic procedure. I can only try to imagine burying someone I love and enduring peaceful protesters mongering hatred about the one I just lost.
Protest in not quite an "inalienable" right, but it is important.
Quote:
|
... a very large margin people believe that free speech rights should be protected "even if they take positions that seem deeply offensive to most people." Fully 70 percent sided with unfettered free speech rights and only 28 percent said that people should have the right to say what they believe, except when those statements might be deeply offensive.
|
Where do we draw the line? Who decides what's offensive? Who mediates or regulates? Is it more important to uphold the right?
I sure don't know, but I'd be interested in hearing what more diverse minds think about this.