This post isn’t about something particularly Saudi, or Arab, or Islamic. Rather, it’s about the struggle various countries, groups, and people are having in finding the balance between free speech and various things people hold, if not sacred, then semi-sacred. It obviously has bearing on issues like defamation of religion, the ‘Mohammed Cartoons’, and various movements within the UN to criminalize unpleasant or unwelcomed speech.
The issue at hand concerns laws passed by the State of Maryland to criminalize ‘harassment’ and ugly speech at the funerals of fallen US soldiers. A Christian group, the Westboro Baptist Church, believes that the US is on its way to perdition through an increasing social and legal acceptance of various behaviors, including homosexuality. It decries this fall by staging noisy protests wherever it thinks useful. Of late, these have included funerals.
Now funerals, even if not of a religious sort, are sensitive things in most of the world. People are in mourning. They’re emotionally wrought. They do not welcome intrusion. The most particularly do not welcome insult of the deceased.
Here, the Court reminds us that even insult is protected speech in the United States. It is not just that offensive speech must be tolerated, it must be protected so that other, better speech is also protected.
4th Circuit affirms protection for repulsive speech
Douglas LeeThe 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week reminded us of two unfortunate realities. First, defending First Amendment freedoms often involves defending sickening speakers. Second, in many instances, the more outrageous the speech, the more likely it is to be protected from civil liability.
Snyder v. Phelps involved the all-too-familiar efforts of Fred Phelps and his Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church to garner news media attention at the expense of family and friends grieving the loss of soldiers killed in battle. In this case, the soldier was Matthew Snyder, a native of Westminster, Md., who was killed in Iraq on March 3, 2006.
Snyder was buried a week later in his hometown. Phelps, continuing a practice he has engaged in for several years, descended on Westminster with two of his daughters and four of his grandchildren to picket the funeral. Their mission, they freely admitted, was to publicize their purportedly religious beliefs that God hates homosexuality and punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in the military.
Outside the funeral, the picketers carried signs that read, “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Pope in Hell,” “Fag Troops,” “You’re Going to Hell,” “God Hates Fags,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Thank God for IEDs” and “Priests Rape Boys.” The group then continued its protest in Annapolis, Md., at the Maryland State House and the U.S. Naval Academy.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
October:03:2009 - 13:34
Oh my. Can’t these people be carted off and put on a 72 hour hold for evaluation? They are not normal.
Really this is a sticky issue though- and I think people should ignore them- especially the press- it doesn’t seem like news, it seems like tantrums. Doesn’t it fall under disturbing the peace?
Manners are so underrated.
October:03:2009 - 14:57
I highly approve of good manners… it’s part of the grease that minimizes social friction and should be applied liberally and often.
It should not, however, be mandated by law and punished by the courts in its failure.
I agree that the WBC are a bunch of what we loosely call lunatics. As offensive as their words and deeds, though, they are only that: offensive. They are not, says the court, illegal.
There are ways to punish their bad behavior that do not entail police, courts, jail terms, and fines. Social ostracization, mockery, humiliation, laughter, boycotts… all of these are good, legal, and socially acceptable tools to deal with idiots as people the WBC. Ignoring them is by far the easiest thing to do, though maybe harder when they’re right in your face.
October:03:2009 - 15:08
Good post. This is a very complicated and serious issue. I think all of us despise people that disrupt and disrespect others — such as in the case of the funeral, or even a case of yelling at a woman wearing Muslim clothing.
On the other hand, if we criminalize speech and opinions, then we are lost. You cannot disconnect freedom of speech from freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, political freedom, equality and the ability to right wrong. For example, I don’t enjoy Jehovah Witnesses knocking at my door (but it only takes 5 seconds to send them on their merry way) it is a small price to pay for liberty.
In the West we are seeing more and more speech codes to limit free speech, using so-called “hate” speech codes by those advocating those laws. In simple terms it means they want to silence any voice they don’t like.
So then I say the right to say things that offend others is necessary, even if those words are wrong, hurt feelings and/or are obnoxious.
Here is a good article on this same issue:
http://volokh.com/2009/10/01/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-calls-to-suppress-supposed-hate-speech/
So what I am saying is that Arabia needs Jehovah Witnesses at ever door, once a month. Just kidding! Kinda!
Kactuz
October:03:2009 - 17:01
Honestly, I feel the most sorry for the grandchildren- if they are young.
Actually the sign waving etc. is relatively easy to ignore. They shouldn’t be able to block walkways etc. or shout while a service is going on- at that point they are infringing on others rights. Even though that line is there- it is very hard to legislate.
I imagine that, fringy though they are, they know and stay on the right side of the law.
October:03:2009 - 17:43
Various US states have imposed ‘exclusion zones,’ beyond which demonstrators must stay. In Maryland, in this case, the zone was pretty large, nearly a half-kilometer, and that was part of what was being challenged. Some states have restrictions about picketing at someone’s home, for instance, and staying 100 feet from women’s health clinics. The vulgarity of the WBC’s protests was the main point in this court decision, though.
The court’s decision made the important point that freedom of expression outweighs freedom to not be offended. The possibility of being offended is the price we all pay to secure our own freedom to speak.
There is, however, a well developed legal history on the concept of ‘fighting words’. Those are generally considered to be personally abusive words that result in immediate, physical retaliation. In Canada, the written word can also be considered ‘fighting words’, but in the US, it pretty much has to be someone standing in your face saying something very strong.
October:03:2009 - 19:12
Isn’t it time to distinguish between speech and actions? As hateful as Phelps is very few people think his website should be stopped. What bothers me is he is acting to combat what is someone else’s free speech. Isn’t a funeral as much a form of speech as a demonstration? He is also acting in many cases to disturb a religious ceremony (most burials include some prayer). What do we do when one person’s free speech claims overlap anothers?
October:03:2009 - 21:03
To an extent, that’s true. But Phelps & Co. are kept outside cemeteries–they’re either private property or government property. His demonstrations are something the grieving have to pass by or pass through. He’s not standing at the grave site calling the deceased names.
So, while he’s interfering with the mourners’ rights, he’s not obstructing them. They can continue with their service, just not in a calm and respectful setting. Neither calm or respect are constitutionally guaranteed.
What is guaranteed is that most people think that Phelps and his family are a bunch of jackasses, but with fewer manners.
October:04:2009 - 01:26
Are the “exclusion zones” the same thing as “free-speach zones”. I remember when the whole country was a free speach zone.
I know you cannot yell “fire” in a public building. Do you know if that is a specific law just for that word?
And you just said “jackasses”. I may have to tweet about that!
October:04:2009 - 03:18
Those people need to be escorted to the “bin”.
I have to say that I am living in country right now where free speech and freedom of expression is limited and I must say, I do appreciate freedom of speech/expression. Oh, I forgot, freddom of information too. (YouTube has been banned where I am)
As very hurtful as it is, the mourners must feel sorry for them, I think. I am only saying this while living (and have lived in other less democratized countries)
One way perhaps to curb hate speeches is that the picketers need a permit and they don’t, they must leave. Just a thought.
October:04:2009 - 06:34
These exclusions zones are areas in which demonstrations are not permitted, the opposite of ‘free speech zones’. Their intent is to prevent intimidation rather than squelch speech. You find them most often around women’s health clinics where mobs have sometimes gathered to protest abortion, but also to encourage women to rethink their decisions or, if that’s not successful, to frighten them into going away.
It’s not ‘yelling fire in a crowded theater’ that’s prohibited… it’s falsely yelling fire, i.e. creating a panic for no good reason. One can–and likely should–yell ‘fire’ if there’s actually a fire. There’s no law that I’m aware of that pertains to that word only, but many that apply to falsely causing problems, inciting to riot, or other ways of inciting to violence. Yelling to a mob, ‘Let’s get John Doe!’ and having the mob get him, for instance, is punishable speech.
Swedish: Depending on the location, a permit may or may not be required. In the US, permits tend to be required if there are going to be large numbers of people who will be disrupting others, for example, blocking streets or requiring the presence of police and health personnel for safety. Permits can also be required to ensure that two or more groups aren’t trying to occupy the same ground at the same time. Law requires that the permits, however, be ‘content neutral’. That means that they cannot be given or withheld on the basis of what the protest is about. They can only be used as means of crowd control or to avoid problems for the general public.
There’s a long history of cases where municipalities tried to use ‘crowd control’ as the excuse, but in fact were assessing content. The municipalities usually ended up being sanctioned and fined. After every meeting of the G-8, G-20, World Bank, or other global economic organization, there are court cases alleging misuse of these restrictions.
Freedom to Assemble is also protected under the US Constitution and, like Free Speech, is found in the First Amendment, along with Freedom of Religious Belief, Freedom to Petition, and Freedom of the Press. Here’s the full text of that Amendment:
Deciding exactly what those words means has been something the Courts have been doing since soon after the Constitution was signed.