The side effects of free speech


Odds are you have never met Fred Phelps. You might not have even heard of him. But if you’re like most Americans, this man hates you with a burning passion.
Phelps is the creator of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), formally a “Primitive Baptist Church”. According to the Anti-Defamation group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and almost anyone else, they are a radical hate group, committed to scattering “god’s hate” against homosexuals, non-Christians, Catholics, Mormons, and nearly all Protestant Christian denominations. (In other words, everyone).
One group that particularly catches the hatred of this group is the U.S. military. Apparently, God hates America because it is too broadminded of homosexuals, and to rebuke us, he kills Americans in terrorist attacks and in wars. The WBC is somehow to blame for informing bereaved families of this. Thus, the hateful picketing of funerals.
Anyone with a basic facts of the laws circled around the First Amendment knows that not all speech is truly sheltered. Things such as “true threats” or “obscenity”, for example, are able to be forbidden. Surely, then, those hateful sayings the WBC uses cannot take pleasure in the shield our founding fathers planned to protect us?
Sadly, they do. According to the U.S. superlative Court, the WBC is inside its rights when scattering its message no matter how vile it may be. Because it touches on vital political issues, no substance how illogical, it’s legal.
“Citizens United all over again”, one may think alongside the Supreme Court. After all, this ruling income that the father of a dead soldier has no option to take against the WBC, after distress because of their picketing of his son’s funeral. And the WBC is now emboldened to do other things .
However, after some attention, one realizes that this delay is actually a watch against something much worse. After all, an reverse ruling by the Supreme Court would unlock the door for all kinds of following speech to be banned by a ruling power, even if the speech in fact was important to public dialogue. After all, it’s not hard to call anything obscene.
I’ll take my right to disapprove of the government lacking, thinking if I’m going to end up in some kind of attentiveness camp. But this doesn’t mean the WBC has won. restricted ordinances can reduce the harm it causes without infringing on free speech. Or you can look at this picture. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4313477038_079b6b8216.jpg. Oppose protests like these have convinced the WBC in some places to stop protesting. A little comedy can achieve something wherever our laws can’t.


Shares