As the perfect tonic for all the attempts to silence Gilbert and Sullivan songs with controversial lyrics, reject bus ads espousing controversial positions, and declare that words like “target” are just too darn inflammatory for the sensitive, politically-correct ears of CNN viewers, here comes the U.S. Supreme Court, galloping to the rescue with a near unanimous (8-1), ringing reaffirmation that free speech is a bastion of American democracy, even when the speaker or speakers are vicious, unfair, cruel, radical and deluded.
You can’t use free speech much more offensively than the Westboro Baptist Church, the anti-gay protesters who chant vile slogans and carry revolting signs near the funerals of U.S. enlisted men, on the theory that the soldiers died because God hates America, and especially the military, for not discriminating against gays enough. But, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his majority opinion in Snyder v. Phelps, announced today:
“Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”
The right of the followers of religious wacko Fred Phelps to spew their hate is also the right of you or I to state our opinions and political views without fear of legal and government reprisals. This is bound to be an unpopular decision, but it is undeniably an ethical one, recognizing the priority of values that make the United States the remarkable country and society that it is.
To listen to the various critics of the Court, these days mostly on the Left, one would get the impression that its decisions are based solely on political loyalties, hidden alliances and pre-determined agendas. This is slanderous, and the opinion in Snyder v. Phelps is instructive. The Supreme Court once again has protected a core American right, and the fact that the case involved the most awful conservative group imaginable assailing the most sympathetic victims conceivable while defaming a core liberal constituency didn’t sway liberal or conservative justices from agreeing on what was really at stake here, and proclaiming it in powerful language.
In the wake of the widely-misrepresented Citizens United ruling, too many, including the President, have been contemptuous of the Court, for reasons that are political rather than fair.The Supreme Court and its members deserve more respect. We owe them a lot.
Ethics Alarms 
You, and The Court, are correct, of course. But it begs the question about what these poor folks — who are only trying to bury their dead — are supposed to do to hold a respectful funeral in the midst of such hateful ignorance. It’s fine to say that they should just ignore it, but that’s easier said than done. Any advice for the mourners?
I think any family likely to be harassed by Fred Phelps’ evil clan needs to find a private cemetery well away from any public space, or to take the time to get a permit to hold it’s own “protest” to keep WPC away. There is no good solution—the case pits privacy vs. free speech, and free speech has to win—but that means privacy loses, too.
This was almost impossible for me to reconcile, but I have accepted that they have the right to do this. I recall the counter-protest to them at Comic-Con being significantly larger than the actual protest. The WBT is truly not worth the time or jump in blood pressure they inspire.
This might be wrong, but it’s my hope that when Fred Phelps dies, as he inevitably will, the protest outside his funeral is larger than the Million Man March.
Is there any realistic way that the family of the soldier who sued will get out of this without having to pay a red cent to these scoundrels?
That is my fear, too: that the court will allow the evil Phelps gang to collect their legal expenses from the soldier’s family.
I agree on the protection of Freedom of Speech, no matter how hateful or disgusting, so long as it does not incite to riot. But I don’t know — has the court ever really defined a line on “fighting words”?
Your wish is my command!
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/gvpt339/fightingwords.html
Heh, my own view is that where-ever the WBC shows up, people should just protest about something else entirely (guns, taxes, welfare, war, whatever), instead of holding a direct counter-protest; let them know how irrelevant they truly are.
I’ve had the same thought, Julian.
That’s pretty much what the counter-protest at Comic-Con was. “Kill all humans!” “Magnets – How Do They Work?” “This is a sign” etc.
The best one was someone dressed as Jesus with a sign that said (in contrast to the signs that say “God Hates Fags” or “God Hates Soldiers”) “God Loves Everyone.”
In two of the comments here, the word “evil” has been used in association with “Phelps’ gang.” I propose this be made a permanent addition, that never shall Fred Phelps name be said without appending “The Evil” to the beginning of it. Or perhaps “The Nefarious.”
I support the Phelps gang’s right to express themselves despite my dislike of their position. What I can’t wrap my head around, however, is the idea that a family funeral is the right place for free speech. We all know you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, because it might incite riot. Presumably that restriction exists to protect people from injury (riots often lead to injury). But if that’s the case, I have to ponder the concept of “injury,” and what counts, and what doesn’t. I guess physical injury is considered valid, but other kinds are not. Or perhaps crowds have more right to remain un-injured than a single family. In my (extremely) humble opinion, it should be illegal to “disturb the peace” of a funeral. Funerals are sacred times/spaces. Sadly, because funerals occur outdoors, the participants are especially vulnerable to disruption in ways that don’t apply during sacred ceremonies that happen indoors. It is simply gross to violate mourners who are burying their loved ones. Perhaps the case should have been initiated in a different way, i.e., as a charge of public indecency or disturbing the peace. Or are those laws not applicable in these circumstances?
1) It’s illegal to FALSELY cry “fire” in a crowded theater. The quote is misapplied. You can cry “Fire!” if there is a fire.
2) You think there should be a First Amendment exception for funerals? What else?
3) The protesters in Madison are “disturbing the peace too.
4) A law against protesting within X distance of a private funeral would probably have been upheld. There wasn’t one. Some states are passing such laws.
The Foul Fred Phelps, hooray alliteration.
When the Westboro Baptist Church protested near the University of Vermont, most students ignored them. I think this is the most effective way to deal with them. Counter protests are ineffective because they do not prevent the Church’s message from being heard. Even if the counter protest is so large that it drowns out the chants of the Church, it is likely that the Church’s protesters will be shown on the evening news, perhaps due to the fact that they drew such a response. The the surest, and most civil way to stop the Westboro Baptist Church is to extinguish its relevance by ignoring its protests.
I like it! But it has to be “The Phoul Phred Phelps,” don’t you think?
I’m trying, and failing, to make proper spelling cool. Having said that, I see I misspelled Westboro in my first comment. For shame.
I try to fix unintentional typos…just fixed yours. The Golden Rule, you know. Just let me know when you make one…I wish I could get this site a spellchecker for comments, but its not available yet.
If you use Google Chrome, you have a spell checker built in. Perhaps when IE 9 gets released in a bit, that will have a spell checker as well.
I suppose that’s why I have fewer than average typos in my posts, but I still get to look like a fool when I use a correctly spelled wrong word. (There/Their/They’re)
When I was in elementary school, I was convinced somehow that “thier” was a word with it’s own grammatical purpose. Not sure how that happened.