Many questions and thoughts arise after reading about the latest actions done by those of the Westboro Baptist Church. For those who don't know, the Westboro Baptist Church is an independent church led by Fred Phelps. They are mostly known for their anti-gay message, and their disgusting habit of picketing funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers in which they hold signs with messages such as "Thank God for 9/11," "You're going to Hell," and "God Hates F*gs." In some twisted way, the WBC believes that God is punishing soldiers because they are fighting for a Country that has has a tolerance for homosexuality. Who could imagine that people could have such indecency to disrespect those who are trying to mourn over a loved one. At the same token, we live in a country in which we have freedom of speech. When do these picketers cross the line? Can our laws do anything to about this behavior without going against the constitution? Can we create a larger "buffer" zone that prevents protesters from disturbing funeral goers?
A recent story might bring up some answers to these questions. Albert Snyder brought the WBC to Supreme Court claiming that when they picketed at his sons funeral, he became ill, became depressed, emotionally distressed, and his diabetes worsened. He is claiming that their actions crossed the line from a protest to a personal attack and harassment. Snyder was awarded five million dollars in damages but the federal court appealed the decision. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court looked into the case again in which Snyder is trying to file suit for emotional distress. The case is ongoing.
USA Today expressed their opinion on the matter in this article. It seems pretty evident that the writer neither agrees with the Westboro Baptist Church's message, nor tries to justify their message. Just in the second sentence, the editorial board labels the WBC members as "a handful of insensitive bigots." Kudos to them, because the words I would label the WBC members is very much beyond "Rated R." The editorial, while not extremely long, does a good job of quickly summarizing the events of Albert Snyder's case as well as giving a detailed enough background on the WBC and their intentions. I would say the audience targeted from this article would be anyone who is interested in constitutional rights as well those who would debate ethical matters vs. freedom of speech. The article is not about whether what the WBC does is right or wrong. It simply sparks the thought that by allowing damages to be paid because others were exercising their freedom of speech, that it could change the way we look at and define that very freedom. They point this out clearly when making the statement, "The essence of free speech is people can say things that are unpopular, not just what the government lets them say. To deny that right for one person is to threaten it for all." I have to agree with this statement because while I may not agree with what someone might say, it is a great privilege that we have the freedom to express ourselves freely.
I think what we will find with this case, is that the courts will make stricter laws on how close protesters can act around private funerals, and will produce stricter penalties if those laws are broken. I agree with the article because they are standing on the idea that freedom of speech must be protected. It is sad and disgusting that such people have to abuse this right to gain attention for something so absurd, but under our constitution, it's hard to say it is wrong (freedom of expression).
The end of the editorial does a good job of throwing some other examples of similar situations which gets the reader to question the rights of protesters. As hard as it is to say, I have to agree with the article even though I completely despise everything about The Westboro Baptist Church.
Link to Article - http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-06-editorial06_ST_N.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment