11.03.07
When Free Speech Goes Sour
I spend an awful lot of time going after the lefty extremists and their abuse of free speech, but since it’s the era of equal opportunity I feel the need to beat on more than just the liberals once in a while. Hey, fair is fair, right?
So just what is free speech? It pops up all over the place these days; from the Don Imus fiasco to the Ahmadinejad visit to Columbia to the Bishop Tutu issue at St. Thomas University. It seems like at least weekly there is some issue of free speech popping up, and in almost every instance it is evident that people (even supposedly educated people) have no idea what the first amendment really means. They simply invoke the first amendment as a shield to hide behind when they decide to be assholes. So as always, I have to ask if the right to free speech also means the right to be an asshole? I have asked this before, and now I will ask it again; this time citing some people that truly push the first amendment too far. Watch the video first, and then read on.
So are the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church protected free speech? By strict legal definition, they are. But what is the legal definition of free speech? Something along the lines of “congress shall make no law…” which means that congress cannot tell you what you can or can’t say on public property. However, and here is the real issue, the law does not necessarily open up the doors for a free for all. You do not have the right of free speech on private property and you do not have the right to free speech when it harms other people. While I question just how one defines harm, the fact remains that the freedom of speech is something that has to be tempered by basic human decency.
So much to my glee, a jury recently slapped these jokers with an $11 million lawsuit to be paid to Albert Snyder,the father of a soldier who was killed in Iraq and had to contend with the WBC protesting his son’s funeral in March of 2006. I commend the jury on doing the right thing here and realizing that while these folks have the right to say what they do, they do not have the right to be assholes and harm this grieving father. The jury did not tell the WBC that they could not protest; instead they told them that they will be punished for hurting people.
Yet the Church swears that they will continue protesting and believe that the lawsuit will be overturned on appeal using the argument of “first amendment rights.”
So the question still stands, what is protected and what is not? Even those who claim to be rabid upholders of free speech need to stand up and take notice of some of the harm that unchecked freedom of speech can cause. Just take a look around some of these websites that they run and see just what it is that is supposedly protected under the law. Take a look at what sort of harm is inflicted upon other people and answer the question of what is protected.
- The Signs of the Times : Something of a front page for these guys with links to their other sites as well as a media section
- America is Doomed : A site with pictures and quotes
- God Hates Fags : The original home page of the WBC.The original sit (www.godhatesfags.com) has been removed, but it has been hidden in a mirror at godhatesamerica.com
- God Hates America : A newer site than “God Hates Fags” that has their fliers and handouts in PDF format as well as their views on various tragic events.
- The Right to be Wrong : A page defending these people and their actions, including a mail section and a FAQ
- The WBC Blogs : The main WBC blog with links to their other blogs
Do these people really deserve the same freedom of speech protection as you or I? Is harming people like Mr. Snyder an acceptable form of free speech? What about taking this to a smaller (and more local) scale. Remember the bizarre tragedy in Wisconsin where the sheriff’s deputy shot and killed a bunch of kids at a party? Apparently the WBC feels that this happened because of the actions of another Wisconsin Sheriff, Todd Nehls, back in 2006. According to the WBC, the shooting in Crandon was due to the fact that Todd Nehls and the rest of the Wisconsin law enforcement community didn’t uphold the law and allow them to protest the soldier’s funeral. Needless to say, this upset some people, including the brother of Todd Nehls, who wrote to these guys and got a response back in the form of a blog post.
Are these the people that we protect? People who seem to take glee from the suffering of other people? They may have the right to say and do what they do, but where does that right end and somebody else’s begin? Therein lies the question, and therein lies the flaw of hiding behind the first amendment every time you want to be an asshole.
micky2 said,
November 3, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Hey ! I got into at the seminal with one of their staff members “Ish”
Ish was calling Bush a baby killer a murderer, war criminal, liar, thief and wanted him impeached on all these accusations.
The man does not have one ounce of evidence or an example to prove any of it. Yet he continues to tell this to the world through his articles.
His articles may be construed as his opinion only. But lets put it this way.
If you were running around telling telling the world that I was a child molester. I would hunt you down and make sure you never said any such thing again.
True or not, this kind of crap can ruin a mans life.
Free speech comes with the responsability of knowing you will pay if you cross the line.
Some actually dont know or care about this unwritten rule. ( Actually it is written, but not the rule I’m talking about)
And then they have the nerve to bitch when they get called on it.
These are the assholes I attack every day.
You can say what you want, true. But put up or shut up.
Untill then you’re just a whoopee cushion.
And if you did what the westboro jerks did to my sons funeral, I would gladly do some time for assault if it were my sons funeral. I would make damn sure someone got hurt.
We need to start confronting these shmucks by letting them know that they are not going to get away with this evil.
11 million dollar judgement is nice and everything, but the Westboro baptist church only has about a million as it stands.They might get shut down if they loose that million, but it wont shut their mouths or stop them from proxy third party donations.
I say we treat them the same way, if not a little worse.
If everyone got up from behind their asses and actually got in these shmucks faces I’m sure it would have alot more effect than a lawsuit or some weekend bikers coming to the scene to discourage them.
Shit ! I know real bikers that would pop wheelies on their asses and piss on them if they ever saw that shit.
Pheistyblog said,
November 3, 2007 at 6:20 pm
YIKES! These people are totally whacked in the head. I wouldn’t call them ‘Baptists’ at all. They’re more like some psycho cult. True Christians don’t think that way, and I think they’ll be surprised when they die and wind up going somewhere else, if you know what I mean.
The irony here is that those soldiers are fighting for those jerks’ right to say the things that they are. Unbelievable.
The thing I, as a Christian, just can’t grasp, is how they can even say that God is “killing soldiers”. God doesn’t kill anybody. He allows the world to have free will, and in a world of free will, evil will exist.
Anyway, regarding the First Amendment… This is a tricky one. Although I stand by their right to say what they will, protesting at a funeral of a soldier is so far beyond the pale, it’s abhorrent. I don’t know. This is a paradox.
At any rate, I’m glad that the father of the solider sued and won. But how sick to think that what should have been a solemn remembrance for a man who served his nation’s people, will forever be etched in the mind of that father as the day his son’s death was not only disregarded, but celebrated.
I think if those idiots would shut up for five seconds and really ask themselves if Jesus would be doing what they’re doing, they may just discover how unholy they really are.
That is about the nastiest bunch of people I’ve ever seen. Disgusting.
micky2 said,
November 3, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Pheisty, you aint seen nothing yet.
These jerks have been around for a while.
Heres more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4WqgfmUbOc
ChenZhen said,
November 3, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I’m not lawyer, but to me this seems like a frivolous lawsuit. If the crazies have a right to be there, then barring some city or state ordinance, they’ve got a right to do their thing. Am I wrong? I mean, if what they were doing was illegal, then call the cops. Otherwise, I would think they’d have to live with it, regardless of how offensive it might be to someone.
The $11 million seems excessive, and appears to be a punishment the jury handed down to this group as for delivering a message that they found offensive , as opposed to a fair compensation for whatever immeasurable damages it might have caused this particular family.
And I think we should look at this from the other direction, and imagine a country where everyone starts suing everyone over on the basis of their own sensibilities. Where do you draw the line? I’m not sure we want to open the door to that. As it sits, this lawsuit is kinda sending the message to the nation “Go ahead and protest, but you might get sued”.
But, again, I’m not a legal scholar.
mpinkeyes said,
November 3, 2007 at 7:30 pm
This is a tough call, but when you infringe upon others I believe you lose your rights. What happened to the funeral parties right to privacy? It was conveniently ignored.
ChenZhen, well already ikne in a world where everyone sues at the drop of a hat.The utter disdain and disrespect this group has for a family in their time of sorrow is despicable.
No Compromises said,
November 3, 2007 at 8:30 pm
The First Amdt. is not here to protect speech we all like; it’s here to protect speech we don’t like otherwise who would get to pick what speech was allowable and which speech can’t be practiced?
These people are out of their mind, true, and what they do is evil in my book, however, they get to practice their speech anyway. That’s the American way and it’s OUR American way, and we need to protect OUR First Amdt. regardless what we think of the people using it!
Thanks, No Compromises.
micky2 said,
November 3, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Tell you what Chen.
We are talking about common decency.
It is these assholes who threaten our free speech by abusing it to the point that we have no course but to take legal action.
Sure, say what you want, even if your message is vial and nasty, you’ll probably reach more folks if you choose the right forum.
If I’m correct you are only allowed to protest within a certain distance of aboetion clinics also.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story
Alarmed by Westboro protests, at least 22 states have proposed or enacted laws to limit the rights of protesters at funerals.
The compensatory damage award alone, $2.9 million, was nearly triple the net worth of Westboro and the three members on trial, their attorney said.
The 11 million decision was meant to slow these people down, do the math, it took them about 10 years to put together the million or two they have in holdings, last I heard it was a million.
This way they can either fork over each buck as soon as they make it, or quit. But as I mentioned above there are still ways to get around it.
The members of the congregation or outside supporters could simply buy their accomidations for them when they go a distance to protest.
If you notice the proposals above we are talking about funerals, not the whole damn country and every function that takes place.
You know, arent we all compelled by a little decency to be quite around hospitals, no matter whos inside ?
Look at it that way.
As a matter of fact a lot of municipal codes require noise be at a certain level near hospitals, or you get a ticket.
My father died in my arms at my sisters house. If these guys knew he was in there and they were doing this during or after his death, all hell would of broke loose.
ChenZhen said,
November 3, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Pass the laws, codes and ordinances. That would work. I’m sure no one ever thought to do such a thing before the Westboro cult (a testament to how crazy these people really are), but sometimes it’s the actions of a few deranged people that results in laws being enacted. The nuts routinely force people to legislate common sense and decency (like you said).
I guess the problem I have is that the crazies did something that they assumed was perfectly legal, and got sued for it. And you highlight something that I was getting at, in that the judgement appears to be crafted with the goal of shutting the group down more that it was a consideration for the actual damage done in the case at hand. It’s on this level that I think it has a bit of a chilling effect that reaches beyond this group and protesting at funerals.
micky2 said,
November 3, 2007 at 11:24 pm
The attempt at shutting them down is justified as they cant seem to adhere to common decency.
We still have all the rights we had ceturies ago. But the times we live in demand that we tweak them.
We are not living in an oppressed state. If what you are worried about was truly happening you would see the same reaction from the people that you would see from me if these assholes showed up at my loved ones funeral.
jroosh said,
November 4, 2007 at 7:48 am
Free spreech means we have to sometimes tolerate even the most repulsive forms of it. If we as a society through due process declare that a funeral is not fair game then so be it as I think most reasonable and prudent citizens would say a funeral is off limits.
The fact that both Hannity and Colmes took after this broken bat is a fair barometer of the fact that this exercise of free speech is universally reviled.
in2thefray said,
November 4, 2007 at 9:03 am
To CZ. You’re right I think in your opinion that the judgment was designed to shut the group down. It’s not unlike using RICO laws to stop protests at abortion clinics. RICO of course was designed to combat organized crime. The KKK and Aryan Nation were bankrupted by civil judgments.Also in MA NAMBLA was sued over a child molestation/murder case. My question is why isn’t civil recourse acceptable ?
My question to anyone is this. When does your free speech deserve to viewed as more important than mine ? Or of my privacy rights and acts of legal commerce ? This is a possible growing question deserving attention.
viciemonkey said,
November 4, 2007 at 9:56 am
The awarded money could be used to erect a memorial to the fallen soldier. There is no winning with these people. The only thing that they might understand is if we all got together and picketed their church for days and in general, made their lives uncomfortable. Oh yeah, only one problem with that…we have lives and better things to do. Seriously
micky2 said,
November 4, 2007 at 10:45 am
100 even 50 years ago this would of never happened, you know why ?
Because they would of got their asses kicked all over creation by decent people and no cop, or court would listen to them, never mind fill out a report. If it got that far it would of been laughed out of court.
We wouldnt of even botherd with this nonsense.
I remember in the 5th grade some kid said some shit about my mother and I smacked him upside the head. He went to the principal and then he was told by the pricipal ” you said what ?” Well hell, what did you expect ? “You deserved it!”
Today me and my folks would be in court and loosing money and having to take anger management courses and I would of gotten suspended for a couple weeks.
I watched the movie “Crash” last night with Sandra Bullock. Anyone who has ever seen it will no what I’m talking about. Its not about the courts or free speach or religion, its about humanity and the decency we as humans should be applying to it.
But were a bunch of ass wipe chicken shits who dont have the balls to stand up and be real out of false pride or some twisted agenda.
Their needs to be a certain point where a man can defend his right to not be called names and not be slanderd in public. He should have the right to walk up to that shmuck and say “excuse me?, what did you say?” and if its repeated, he gets knocked on his ass.
But were so fucking PC these days that aspect of our humanity is gone.
arclightzero said,
November 4, 2007 at 3:10 pm
The issue here isn’t that they shouldn’t be allowed to say what they do,the issue is that their freedom is infringing on somebody else. The law of free speech is terribly vague about this sort of thing. can you protect somebody else’s rights while still protecting the first amendment rights of others? I believe so. Why can’t you uphold and enforce a law that states that they can say what they want to long as people aren’t negatively affected by it? Nowhere in the constitution does it state that people have to legally hear what you have to say. It simply states that the government cannot tell you what you can or cannot say.
Let the WBC say what they want and have their little hate parties. Nobody is saying they can’t, especially not me. I am simply saying that the rights of others to be in peace is a right that should take precedence over the right of free speech. It’s asinine to think that free speech should be upheld regardless, even if that means that a grieving father must be subjected to mental anguish during his son’s funeral. Even freedom must have limitations, otherwise it becomes anarchy. To think that America has given people endless rights is wishful thinking at its worst.
deaconblue said,
November 4, 2007 at 3:47 pm
The thing that most people forget, or are just plain ignorant about, is that all the rights we have are not without limits. The basic threshold is when your rights collide with mine. Yes you can say just about anything you want, but it does not mean that I have to forced to listen to you. You cannot lie, or defame, or libel, or shout fire in a crowded movie theater is there is none. You cannot incite to riot. It’s one of the big reasons why “hate speach” is in such a murky grey area.
These WBC whack-jobs thought they had an impenetrable shield. They were wrong, and they should have known that from the begining. Yes they did commit a crime, but not one that is handled through the criminal justice system. They defamed and libeled a dead soldier and his family, and that is handled through civil courts, a recourse which the family took, and rightfuly won.
You see, they wanted someone to call the cops. They wanted to provoke a confrontation. This way they get a lot of free air time to spew their venom. It’s a classic tactic of the modern media age. If you provoke a confrontation, and better yet a violent one, you will get all the “news” outlets swarming all over the story, and publishing your views for free.
IMO, the family handled this exactly as it should have been. They took the WBC to court, and won. Now it’s the family, and those like them who are getting the air time, not the WBC. This is the best possible outcome.
micky2 said,
November 4, 2007 at 4:38 pm
ALZ;
“The issue here isn’t that they shouldn’t be allowed to say what they do,the issue is that their freedom is infringing on somebody else.”
I agree with you buddy on the issue of ones rights colliding with anothers, its called respect and manners. We cant legislate manners and morality.
As far as them not being allowed to say what they want goes.I guess I should back up and calm down a little and say that if thats how I came off, I’m sorry.But like Deacon said, I shouldnt have to listen to it either. If I’m correct we all really only get one funeral, theres no backing up and fixing it after these creeps destroyed it.
I still stick to my old school guns. I’ll bet they would never pull that shit around me again. These people need to be met with a physical face to face and be let known that this will not be tolerated.
You want to slam them in court great, but that is only after its too late.
These characters arent done yet, and 500 feet aint shit, I’m sure the gathering around the coffin can still hear these creeps.
I’ve taken out restraing orders on people for less hassle and it worked pretty well , they had to stay a lot further away that 500 feet.
The Land of the Free? « Ban the Ban Wisconsin said,
April 25, 2008 at 6:51 am
[...] of the First Amendment. If the First can be used to defend the worst of the worst (i.e. the Westboro Baptist Church et al.) and allows them the freedom to speak their mind and offend even the most jaded of people, [...]