Columns

It’s time to take a hard look at 1st Amendment

Any publicity isn’t always good publicity and the fundamentalist Christian Westboro Baptist Church is going to find out the hard way. The Westburo Baptist Church is famous for its fiercely anti-homosexual views, rallies and claims that God kills US soldiers in punishment for America’s general tolerance of homosexuality and a homosexual presence in the military.

The Westboro congregation is even going as far to shamelessly picket funerals of soldiers to promote its message. When this happened at the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, with signs reading “God hates you” and “You’re going to hell”, the father of the marine, Albert Snyder, filed a lawsuit against pastor Fred Phelps and the church on the claims of defamation of character, two counts of invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Snyder emerged victorious with an $11 million dollar jury verdict, only later to have it thrown out in an appeals court on First Amendment grounds. This has raised a question many are starting to ask — how far does the First Amendment reach, and does grief at funerals warrant an exception to free speech? With Snyder vs. Phelps entering the Supreme Court docket in its new term, it is a question that will soon be answered.

If our justice system is fair and sensible, Albert Snyder, a wronged father of a defamed and departed son, will win this case. Freedom of speech allows unpopular or distasteful views and ideas like racism or sexism to be said openly without government repercussion. The few restrictions, which are limited to child pornography, speech that incites imminent danger and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising, exist for general protection.

The Supreme Court must come to the conclusion that the First Amendment should not be recognized on any private property or gathering or any place involving grief or emotional stress, where speech can be knowingly used to harm.

Free speech should be restricted to public and government areas. The First Amendment is one of America’s most celebrated virtues, not a tool to hide harassment and invasion of privacy. If free speech is abused to harm our citizens in places where they should be free from harm, its purpose becomes corrupted and rightly eligible for restriction on the basis of general protection of people and the significance of the amendment itself.

Steps should be taken to make the First Amendment more specific in its meaning, but at the same time, we must be sure not to go too far. This case must be recognized for more than just a fight against objectionable language and offensive speech, so that it does not lead to a wave of unnecessary and insensible regulation.

If you disagree with the actions of Westburo, that’s fine — but don’t forget its members still have the right to voice their opinions, no matter how wrong you believe them to be. However, there are limits, and the Westburo Baptist Church has crossed them by ruining the funerals of American soldiers like Matthew Snyder without remorse. As his father said, if nothing less, he deserved to be buried with dignity.

Marcus Smith is a creative writing freshman and may be reached at [email protected].

4 Comments

  • Good article.

    In this one case involving the group from Westburo picketing the soldiers funerals it would be fine with me if the police arrest all of them for inciting to riot and then let the jury sort-out any freedom of speech issues.

    If I am attending a funeral for a family member or friend killed in service to his or her country, it would be wise not to get in my face or the face of my friends or family members.

    And I'll bet the jury would agree with me.
    ::
    GP

  • You might not like what they say but who are you to judge anyone else? Any censorship no matter the intention is WRONG. You censor one thing you set precedent for other "exceptions" and before you know it you've lost your freedom. You idiots sicken me.

  • I don't understand how the father of the soldier winning the case intrudes on anyone's free speech, period. Did the old lady suing McDonald's for hot coffee and her own act of clumsiness interfere with everyone else's coffee habits? Did the lawsuits against tabacco companies keep cigarettes away from the rest of us? The crazies are still going to protest however/whenever/where ever they can and that's fine because free speech trumps all. However, there ARE consequences for everything anyone says or does. Celebrities sue tabloids all of the time for their printed stories about them. Where is the outrage about free speech in those cases? And have their lawsuits stopped tabloids from existing? No. What's the difference between libel and invasion of privacy? How do people suing for either interrupt the concept of free speech? A grieving father suing the Westboros for ruining his son's burial isn't going to interfere with freedom of speech anymore than celebrities suing tabloids. It will simply show them that some people aren't willing to roll over and allow their malicious intrusions at funerals, period.

    • Exactly, you should be free to say what you want. It doesn't make what you say right but you're free to say it. People have the freedom to slander others, it doesn't mean its the right thing to do but they have that right to voice their opinion (however they'll still have to face the consequences for that obviously since libel and slander are frowned upon.)

Leave a Comment