“Abortion-clinic buffer zone too strict, federal judge rules.” First Amendment Center. 18 April 2006. 20 October 2007. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16781>
The text identifies a freedom of speech case, which a judge decides that a law violates freedom of speech. The source is objective because it is from the Associated Press. I learned that there are many cases of restrictions of freedom of speech that do not obtain large media attention. This will be useful in my project because it gives an example of a judge deeming a law unconstitutional.
Alvarez, Lizette. “Outrage at Funeral Protests Pushes Lawmakers to Act.” The New York Times. 17 April 2006. 8 October 2007. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17picket.html>
This article focuses on what the Westboro Baptists Church is about, the reaction to this group, and laws enacted to protect the families of the deceased. This is an objective source because the writer tells of all sides positions. This article gave precedent cases and laws that have been enacted. This is useful to my project because I know the laws being created in various states.
Barnes, Robert. “Justices to Hear Landmark Free-Speech Case.” Washington Post. 13 March 2007. 21 October 2007.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201699. html>
This article focuses on the freedom of speech of students. It is about the Joseph Frederick case, which involves a student holding a banner stating, “bong hits 4 Jesus.” This article is for freedom of speech. This is useful for my project because it is about a case where freedom of speech was upheld.
David L. Hudson Jr. “Funeral Protests.” First Amendment Center. October 2006. 8 October 2007.<http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/topic.aspx?topic=funeral_prote sts>
This article focuses on freedom of speech cases involving protests at abortion clinics. It is not objective because it is from the First Amendment Center. The article gives various cases of freedom of speech of abortion protestors. This is useful because it contains many laws that have been enacted and/or deemed unconstitutional. I will use this to show how the judicial system feels about the freedom of speech.
“Funeral Protest Challenge.” ACLU. 21 July 2006. 8 October 2007. <http://www.aclu- em.org/pressroom/2006pressreleases/72106acluchallengeslawbann.htm>
This article focuses on the ACLU’s opinion of the laws created because of the Westboro Baptist Church group. This is not objective because it is from a website of a group which is notorious for their stance on free speech. I will use this text as information for people who want no restrictions of speech.
Leinwand, Donna. “Blair: Extremist no longer welcome in UK.” USA TODAY on the web 11 August 2005. 21 October 2007.
<http://www.usatoday.com/educate/firstamendment/finalspeech.pdf>
This article shows the difference between freedom of speech in America and in another country. This is an objective source because it is not involved with Great Britain. I will use this article to show how other countries have to deal with freedom of speech but they have different guidelines.
Macdonald, Jeffery. “Whither academic freedom?” USA TODAY on the web 18 May 2005. 21 October 2007.<http://www.usatoday.com/educate/firstamendment/finalspeech.pdf>
This article is about the right of students to free speech with regards to grades. The case involves a student who feels because she wrote conservative views in her class her teacher penalized her grade. This is an objective source because it is a moderate newspaper. I will use this as another case which involves education and freedom of speech.
Memmott, Mark. “First Amendment gains support as fears ease.” USA TODAY on the web 28 June 2005. 21 October 2005.
<http://www.usatoday.com/educate/firstamendment/finalspeech.pdf>
This article has statistics that show how Americans feel about the limitations of freedom of speech. This is objective because it is a study done by a moderate newspaper. I will use this to show American’s thoughts.
Rostow, Ann. “ACLU sues to end curb on funeral protests.” GAY.COM. 2 May 2006. 21 October 2007. <http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/05/02/3>
This article focuses on how the ACLU is fighting to override laws that put limitations on freedom of speech. This is not an objective text, because it was found on a website designed for homosexuals and the Westboro Baptist Church protested at the funeral of Matthew Shepard. I will use this to show what the ACLU feels about the laws created because of the funeral protests.
“The Tongue Twisters.” Economist. 11 October 2007. 21 October 2007. <http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9958 346>
This article focuses on the freedom of speech in the media with reference to national security. It asks what measures should be put on the media. This is an objective piece because it is written by the media, which is involved in the debate. I will use this to show another example of how the government puts restrictions on free speech.
Vlahos, Kelly Beaucher. “Families Seek Legislative Remedies From Funeral Protesters” Fox News. 13 February 2006. 21 October 2007. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184623,00.html>
This article is about what the government is doing to instill laws that limit what the Westboro Baptist Church members could do, without making unconstitutional laws. The government is working very close with constitution experts to make this happen. This is an objective piece because it is a news source uninvolved with the case. I will use this to show that the government
is being careful about how they word laws.
Walsh, Mark. “Teacher’s Free Speech Denied.” Teacher Magazine. 5 October 2007. 21 October 2007. <http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/news/profession/2007/10/05/ew_freespeech _web.h19.html>
This article focuses on if a teacher has the right to say his or her views to her class room. It also is about if anyone in the workplace should be able to speak on anything he or she chooses. This is not an objective source because the magazine is written for teachers. I will use this to show an example of where free speech has limitations.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Constitutional Rights
Who in South Carolina has a right to be heard? Who does the government grant the permission to speak freely and assemble? Well, the answer to that question is simple: everyone. In clear print the Constitution displays, “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” In normal-person-speak, Congress cannot create a law that stops any citizen from speaking his or her mind or to form a protest. There are numerous laws being created, destroyed, and changed involving free speech. The inconsistency in these laws, specifically involving free speech and private places, confuse the issue and allow some people to speak while others are quieted. Without nationwide consistency in these laws, the number of lawsuits from both the oppressed and the offended will grow.
Every year, there are hundreds of debates pertaining to free speech. Recently, a group out of Kansas, The Westboro Baptist Church, has triggered the creation of many different laws in many states pertaining to this issue. The church members attend memorial services and funerals of dead soldiers, AIDS victims, and famous supporters of gay rights. They hold signs which read, “God Hates Fags,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The families of the deceased and most Americans are appalled by their message and method of sharing (Alvarez). A father of a deceased soldier, whose funeral was picketed by this group, recently won a ten million dollar lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church. He won the case due to the emotional stress and invasion of privacy (“Church”).
Many states have created laws because of the Westboro Baptist Church. The laws usually pertain to the distance and times the protests can be held. Nine states have already created laws designed for the funeral protests. Twenty-three additional states are passing legislation to create these types of laws. These laws do not prohibit the protestors from speaking entirely, but places restrictions on when and where (Alvarez).
These laws have already been brought to the courts. Bart McQuery, on behalf of the Westboro Baptist Church, has filed a lawsuit against the state of Kentucky’s laws that prohibit these protests. "Public opinion overwhelmingly rejects the type of conduct that has been undertaken by Phelps...," said Check Samuelson of the Minnesota ACLU. "However, speech that is cruel, distasteful and upsetting is still protected by the First Amendment, and by leaving the state on precarious legal footing, what this bill is doing is encouraging Phelps to sue" (Rostow). This is the feeling of the members of the ACLU about the laws created against the Westboro Baptist Church. They fear that the laws could be deemed unconstitutional if not correctly stated. If they are deemed unconstitutional, the government faces many unnecessary lawsuits. The money awarded to these types of groups will just fund their means (Rostow).
This lawsuit resembles a law deemed unconstitutional in West Palm Beach, Florida. The law required that protesters assembling at abortion clinics had to stay a distance of twenty feet away from the building. Judge Daniel Middlebrooks, who presides over this case, ruled that this was in violation of the protestor’s constitutional rights. He did allow a law that does not allow excessive noise 100 feet near abortion clinics. Judge Middlebrooks ordered that the city had to pay a 40,000 dollar fine for the court fees (Abortion-clinics).
These two cases are basically the same. The protestors gather at a private, emotionally charged event. They both display messages in complete contrast to the thoughts of the people involved. In one case, the buffer zone is legal. In another case, the buffer zone is considered illegal. Two different judges decide two polar opposite verdicts.
In the 1917 case of Masses Publishing v Patten, the issue of hurtful, violent speech came to the courts. Learned Hand argued that the postmaster general’s prohibition of speech of a revolutionary journal that criticized the draft and capitalism violated the First Amendment. Hand felt that there as a difference between words that "trigger action" and "key persuasion." The cas was brought to a state court and the prohibition was deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was not involved until 1969. This case involved a Ku Klux Klan member who stated there may be violence that needs to be taken place. The Court’s verdict was that speech can only be oppressed if it is going to cause imminent dangers. If the words were going to cause danger immediately, then the actions of speaking them is called “imminent lawless conduct” (Advocacy).
The Westboro Baptist Church members never yield signs or speak words of imminent lawless conduct. Their signs only speak of criticizing Americans and their immorality. They are not threatening the mourners that they are going to physically harm them. They are also not telling their own members to immediately burn down buildings or overturn cars. Their speech should be protected by the First Amendment.
Deciding this issue on a federal level will stop the inconsistency of laws and verdicts of lawsuits. The Constitution is meant to give all Americans equal rights. However, the right of free speech is determined by how each judge feels. There should be a law enacted which creates a constant law pertaining to protests at private places, such as: funeral homes, memorial services, and abortion clinics.
The people on either side of this argument should not be denied their rights as Americans. The protestors should be allowed to freely speak and the people who want their privacy should be allowed it as well. Protests at private places should be kept at a reasonable sound level and should be forty feet from the private place. This allows the people opposing the protest to have distance from the protestors.
There are no other reasonable options in the issue. If the protestors are not allowed to speak and assemble, their rights are being taken away from them. If the individuals seeking privacy are not protected by law, their rights are being taken away from them. The constitution gives everyone the right of privacy and free speech. Also, this should be decided on a federal instead of a state level. This will help in keeping consistency through out the country regarding laws on speech and protests.
This debate is very touchy and causes much strife in America. With a constant law regarding free speech and private places, the constitution will be rightfully employed. There is no other option in this debate that would be legal. With consistency, the laws of free speech will finally be constitutional.
Works Cited
“Abortion-clinic buffer zone too strict, federal judge rules.” First Amendment Center. 18 April 2006. 20 October 2007..
“Advocacy of Unlawful Action and the “Incitement Test.”” Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. UMKC of Law. 29 November 2007.
Alvarez, Lizzette. “Outrage at Funeral Protests Pushes Lawmakers to Act.”The New York Times. 17 April 2006. 8 October 2007.
“Chuch Ordered to Pay $10.9 Million for Funeral Protests.” CNN. 31 October 2007. 29 November 2007.
Rostow, Ann. “ACLU sues to end curb on funeral protests.” GAY.COM. 2 May 2006. 21 October 2007.
Every year, there are hundreds of debates pertaining to free speech. Recently, a group out of Kansas, The Westboro Baptist Church, has triggered the creation of many different laws in many states pertaining to this issue. The church members attend memorial services and funerals of dead soldiers, AIDS victims, and famous supporters of gay rights. They hold signs which read, “God Hates Fags,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The families of the deceased and most Americans are appalled by their message and method of sharing (Alvarez). A father of a deceased soldier, whose funeral was picketed by this group, recently won a ten million dollar lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church. He won the case due to the emotional stress and invasion of privacy (“Church”).
Many states have created laws because of the Westboro Baptist Church. The laws usually pertain to the distance and times the protests can be held. Nine states have already created laws designed for the funeral protests. Twenty-three additional states are passing legislation to create these types of laws. These laws do not prohibit the protestors from speaking entirely, but places restrictions on when and where (Alvarez).
These laws have already been brought to the courts. Bart McQuery, on behalf of the Westboro Baptist Church, has filed a lawsuit against the state of Kentucky’s laws that prohibit these protests. "Public opinion overwhelmingly rejects the type of conduct that has been undertaken by Phelps...," said Check Samuelson of the Minnesota ACLU. "However, speech that is cruel, distasteful and upsetting is still protected by the First Amendment, and by leaving the state on precarious legal footing, what this bill is doing is encouraging Phelps to sue" (Rostow). This is the feeling of the members of the ACLU about the laws created against the Westboro Baptist Church. They fear that the laws could be deemed unconstitutional if not correctly stated. If they are deemed unconstitutional, the government faces many unnecessary lawsuits. The money awarded to these types of groups will just fund their means (Rostow).
This lawsuit resembles a law deemed unconstitutional in West Palm Beach, Florida. The law required that protesters assembling at abortion clinics had to stay a distance of twenty feet away from the building. Judge Daniel Middlebrooks, who presides over this case, ruled that this was in violation of the protestor’s constitutional rights. He did allow a law that does not allow excessive noise 100 feet near abortion clinics. Judge Middlebrooks ordered that the city had to pay a 40,000 dollar fine for the court fees (Abortion-clinics).
These two cases are basically the same. The protestors gather at a private, emotionally charged event. They both display messages in complete contrast to the thoughts of the people involved. In one case, the buffer zone is legal. In another case, the buffer zone is considered illegal. Two different judges decide two polar opposite verdicts.
In the 1917 case of Masses Publishing v Patten, the issue of hurtful, violent speech came to the courts. Learned Hand argued that the postmaster general’s prohibition of speech of a revolutionary journal that criticized the draft and capitalism violated the First Amendment. Hand felt that there as a difference between words that "trigger action" and "key persuasion." The cas was brought to a state court and the prohibition was deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was not involved until 1969. This case involved a Ku Klux Klan member who stated there may be violence that needs to be taken place. The Court’s verdict was that speech can only be oppressed if it is going to cause imminent dangers. If the words were going to cause danger immediately, then the actions of speaking them is called “imminent lawless conduct” (Advocacy).
The Westboro Baptist Church members never yield signs or speak words of imminent lawless conduct. Their signs only speak of criticizing Americans and their immorality. They are not threatening the mourners that they are going to physically harm them. They are also not telling their own members to immediately burn down buildings or overturn cars. Their speech should be protected by the First Amendment.
Deciding this issue on a federal level will stop the inconsistency of laws and verdicts of lawsuits. The Constitution is meant to give all Americans equal rights. However, the right of free speech is determined by how each judge feels. There should be a law enacted which creates a constant law pertaining to protests at private places, such as: funeral homes, memorial services, and abortion clinics.
The people on either side of this argument should not be denied their rights as Americans. The protestors should be allowed to freely speak and the people who want their privacy should be allowed it as well. Protests at private places should be kept at a reasonable sound level and should be forty feet from the private place. This allows the people opposing the protest to have distance from the protestors.
There are no other reasonable options in the issue. If the protestors are not allowed to speak and assemble, their rights are being taken away from them. If the individuals seeking privacy are not protected by law, their rights are being taken away from them. The constitution gives everyone the right of privacy and free speech. Also, this should be decided on a federal instead of a state level. This will help in keeping consistency through out the country regarding laws on speech and protests.
This debate is very touchy and causes much strife in America. With a constant law regarding free speech and private places, the constitution will be rightfully employed. There is no other option in this debate that would be legal. With consistency, the laws of free speech will finally be constitutional.
Works Cited
“Abortion-clinic buffer zone too strict, federal judge rules.” First Amendment Center. 18 April 2006. 20 October 2007.
“Advocacy of Unlawful Action and the “Incitement Test.”” Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. UMKC of Law. 29 November 2007.
Alvarez, Lizzette. “Outrage at Funeral Protests Pushes Lawmakers to Act.”The New York Times. 17 April 2006. 8 October 2007.
“Chuch Ordered to Pay $10.9 Million for Funeral Protests.” CNN. 31 October 2007. 29 November 2007.
Rostow, Ann. “ACLU sues to end curb on funeral protests.” GAY.COM. 2 May 2006. 21 October 2007.
Boundaries of Free Speech
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech to every American. Americans are extremely proud of this right. Many citizens have employed it to create a change in their societies. Without this allotted freedom, Martin Luther King Jr. and so many more would have been silenced by the majority of people who did not want to hear them. When the words spoken are accepted and believed by the majority, the public accepts this as freedom of speech. When the words differ from the norm, the public shouts that the speaker abuses the right of free speech. When do the lines blur? When is it acceptable for the United States’ government to silence its people?
With the rise of the digital transfer, more people have the chance to speak their minds and to be heard worldwide. Celebrities, politicians, and average citizens come under fire from the public every day for statements they make. The Westboro Baptist Church, based out of Topeka, Kansas, has recently stirred the debate of free speech. Fred Phelps formed his church, consisting mainly of his family members, to crusade against homosexuality and to educate Americans of the wrath of God. He has lead protests at the funeral of Matthew Shepard and numerous funerals of deceased soldiers. They also protested at the funerals of Coretta Scott King and AIDs victims (Church). The protestors assemble outside funeral homes holding signs declaring, “Thank God for dead soldiers,” and “God hates fag enablers.” Should people have the right to say whatever they want in any circumstance?
The Constitution gives every citizen the right to free speech without constraints. The ACLU, American Civil Liberty Union, holds this view. A member of the Minnesota ACLU, Check Samuelson, states, “speech that is cruel, distasteful and upsetting is still protected by the First Amendment.” Bart McQueary, represented by the ACLU of Minnesota, filed a lawsuit against the state of Kansas for the laws enacted against the funeral protestors. Kansas ratified a law that prohibits protestors from assembling three hundred feet near a funeral or memorial service (Rostow). Al Snyder, the father of a deceased marine, successfully sued the Westboro Baptist Church for 10.9 million dollars. Snyder claimed that the church defamed his son, deliberately caused emotional distress, and invaded privacy (Church).
This parallels a lawsuit concerning the constitutionality of a law in West Palm Beach concerning protests at abortion clinics. The city enacted a legislation that made it illegal to protest less than twenty feet away from an abortion clinic. The judge of this case, United States District Judge, Donald Middlebrooks, ruled the law was in violation of the freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech is rarely an issue when everyone agrees," states Middlebrook. "Perhaps more than at any other place and any other time…speech guaranteed by the First Amendment must be protected." The ruling of these two cases show the contradictions in laws created concerning free speech (West).
Having restrictions of speech but not suppression is a stance many lawmakers have taken as their own. Nine states have already put restrictions on when and where the funeral protesters can demonstrate. An additional twenty-three states are in the process of passing similar bills. The laws place the protestors at least one hundred to five hundred feet away from the funeral and only allow them to congregate an hour before and after. Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor states, “A funeral home seems high on the list of places where people legitimately could be or should be protected from unwanted messages." The laws are designed not to silence the speech, but to create circumstances when both opposing sides are given equal rights (Alvarez). The protestors are allowed to gather and the families of the deceased are protected by the distance. The state senator of Nebraska, Mike Friend, and many others are striving to make the laws created constitutional. Lawmakers are consulting with constitution experts so that the laws could not create lawsuits (Vlahos).
Some individuals believe that the Bill of Rights should not be interpreted as right to say anything or protests anywhere. If the speech causes harm to another, it should not be protected. The case concerning Al Snyder shows this view. "I hope it's enough to deter them from doing this to other families…It was about getting them to stop," Snyder claims (Hurdle). Understandably, most families of the deceased soldiers do not want to restrict the speech but to stop it entirely.
Just because speech is hurtful and violent does not mean it is unconstitutional. In 1917, there was a case between Masses Publishing and Patten. At the time, the postmaster general prohibited speech that criticized the draft and capitalism. Learned Hand argued that the prohibition of speech violated the First Amendment. Hand felt that there as a difference between words that "trigger action" and "key persuasion." The Supreme Court became involved with a similar case in 1969. This case involved a Ku Klux Klan member who talked that there should be violent actions taken by white Americans. The verdict was that the constitutional only allows the oppression of speech if it is going to cause imminent dangers. If the words were going to cause danger immediately, then the actions of speaking them is called imminent lawless conduct (Advocacy).
The lines of acceptable free speech are always changing. The ACLU and many avid first amendment supporters believe that this freedom should be whole-heartedly supported without restrictions to ensure equality to all citizens. Others support the first amendment but realize there has to be certain restrictions to protect the listeners. Some people do not believe that free speech is not inclusive and in certain circumstance should not be allowed. Speech, however, should never be suppressed. The right is given to each and every citizen in this country. If one person is not allowed to speak his or her mind, the constitution of the United States is not being followed. There should be policies that allow people to protest and speak their minds, but allow others to protect themselves from hearing them. Every citizen should support the government’s protection of even the most unsupported individual, because someday it could be him who strays from the norm.
Works Cited
"Advocacy of Unlawful Action and the "Incitement Test"" Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. UMKC of Law. 29 Nov. 2007.
Alvarez, Lizette. “Outrage at Funeral Protests Pushes Lawmakers to Act.” The New York Times. 17 April 2006. 8 October 2007. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17picket.html>
"Church Ordered to Pay $10.9 Million for Funeral Protest." CNN. 31 Oct. 2007. 29 Nov. 2007.
Hurdle, Jon. “Kansas Church Liable in Marine Funeral Protest.” Reuters. 31 Oct. 2007 8
Nov. 2007.
Rostow, Ann. “ACLU sues to end curb on funeral protests.” GAY.COM. 2 May 2006. 21 October 2007. <http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/05/02/3>
Vlahos, Kelly Beaucher. “Families Seek Legislative Remedies From Funeral Protests.” Fox News. 13 February 2006. 8 November 2007.
“West Palm Beach abortion law violates free speech.” Naples News.com. 19 April 2006. 8 November 2007.
With the rise of the digital transfer, more people have the chance to speak their minds and to be heard worldwide. Celebrities, politicians, and average citizens come under fire from the public every day for statements they make. The Westboro Baptist Church, based out of Topeka, Kansas, has recently stirred the debate of free speech. Fred Phelps formed his church, consisting mainly of his family members, to crusade against homosexuality and to educate Americans of the wrath of God. He has lead protests at the funeral of Matthew Shepard and numerous funerals of deceased soldiers. They also protested at the funerals of Coretta Scott King and AIDs victims (Church). The protestors assemble outside funeral homes holding signs declaring, “Thank God for dead soldiers,” and “God hates fag enablers.” Should people have the right to say whatever they want in any circumstance?
The Constitution gives every citizen the right to free speech without constraints. The ACLU, American Civil Liberty Union, holds this view. A member of the Minnesota ACLU, Check Samuelson, states, “speech that is cruel, distasteful and upsetting is still protected by the First Amendment.” Bart McQueary, represented by the ACLU of Minnesota, filed a lawsuit against the state of Kansas for the laws enacted against the funeral protestors. Kansas ratified a law that prohibits protestors from assembling three hundred feet near a funeral or memorial service (Rostow). Al Snyder, the father of a deceased marine, successfully sued the Westboro Baptist Church for 10.9 million dollars. Snyder claimed that the church defamed his son, deliberately caused emotional distress, and invaded privacy (Church).
This parallels a lawsuit concerning the constitutionality of a law in West Palm Beach concerning protests at abortion clinics. The city enacted a legislation that made it illegal to protest less than twenty feet away from an abortion clinic. The judge of this case, United States District Judge, Donald Middlebrooks, ruled the law was in violation of the freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech is rarely an issue when everyone agrees," states Middlebrook. "Perhaps more than at any other place and any other time…speech guaranteed by the First Amendment must be protected." The ruling of these two cases show the contradictions in laws created concerning free speech (West).
Having restrictions of speech but not suppression is a stance many lawmakers have taken as their own. Nine states have already put restrictions on when and where the funeral protesters can demonstrate. An additional twenty-three states are in the process of passing similar bills. The laws place the protestors at least one hundred to five hundred feet away from the funeral and only allow them to congregate an hour before and after. Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor states, “A funeral home seems high on the list of places where people legitimately could be or should be protected from unwanted messages." The laws are designed not to silence the speech, but to create circumstances when both opposing sides are given equal rights (Alvarez). The protestors are allowed to gather and the families of the deceased are protected by the distance. The state senator of Nebraska, Mike Friend, and many others are striving to make the laws created constitutional. Lawmakers are consulting with constitution experts so that the laws could not create lawsuits (Vlahos).
Some individuals believe that the Bill of Rights should not be interpreted as right to say anything or protests anywhere. If the speech causes harm to another, it should not be protected. The case concerning Al Snyder shows this view. "I hope it's enough to deter them from doing this to other families…It was about getting them to stop," Snyder claims (Hurdle). Understandably, most families of the deceased soldiers do not want to restrict the speech but to stop it entirely.
Just because speech is hurtful and violent does not mean it is unconstitutional. In 1917, there was a case between Masses Publishing and Patten. At the time, the postmaster general prohibited speech that criticized the draft and capitalism. Learned Hand argued that the prohibition of speech violated the First Amendment. Hand felt that there as a difference between words that "trigger action" and "key persuasion." The Supreme Court became involved with a similar case in 1969. This case involved a Ku Klux Klan member who talked that there should be violent actions taken by white Americans. The verdict was that the constitutional only allows the oppression of speech if it is going to cause imminent dangers. If the words were going to cause danger immediately, then the actions of speaking them is called imminent lawless conduct (Advocacy).
The lines of acceptable free speech are always changing. The ACLU and many avid first amendment supporters believe that this freedom should be whole-heartedly supported without restrictions to ensure equality to all citizens. Others support the first amendment but realize there has to be certain restrictions to protect the listeners. Some people do not believe that free speech is not inclusive and in certain circumstance should not be allowed. Speech, however, should never be suppressed. The right is given to each and every citizen in this country. If one person is not allowed to speak his or her mind, the constitution of the United States is not being followed. There should be policies that allow people to protest and speak their minds, but allow others to protect themselves from hearing them. Every citizen should support the government’s protection of even the most unsupported individual, because someday it could be him who strays from the norm.
Works Cited
"Advocacy of Unlawful Action and the "Incitement Test"" Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. UMKC of Law. 29 Nov. 2007
Alvarez, Lizette. “Outrage at Funeral Protests Pushes Lawmakers to Act.” The New York Times. 17 April 2006. 8 October 2007. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17picket.html>
"Church Ordered to Pay $10.9 Million for Funeral Protest." CNN. 31 Oct. 2007. 29 Nov. 2007
Hurdle, Jon. “Kansas Church Liable in Marine Funeral Protest.” Reuters. 31 Oct. 2007 8
Nov. 2007
Rostow, Ann. “ACLU sues to end curb on funeral protests.” GAY.COM. 2 May 2006. 21 October 2007. <http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/05/02/3>
Vlahos, Kelly Beaucher. “Families Seek Legislative Remedies From Funeral Protests.” Fox News. 13 February 2006. 8 November 2007.
“West Palm Beach abortion law violates free speech.” Naples News.com. 19 April 2006. 8 November 2007.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Limitations of Free Speech: Ever Constitutional?
The constitution clearly states in the First Amendment that all American citizens have the right to free speech and to have peaceable assembly. People have called this freedom into question innumerable times. The government has created, changed, and ended laws pertaining to free speech. The main problem with this issue is the lack of consistency. Each law maker or judge has a different interpretation of what the constitution considers free speech.Recently, a religious group out of Kansas sparked a new fire in this debate. The Westboro Baptist Church, ran by Fred Phelps, protests at the funerals of AIDS victims, Matthew Shepard, and deceased soldiers. They yield signs that declare, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "God Hates Fags." Understandably, the families of the soldiers and the American public are appalled by the messages and actions of this group. Several states have created new legislation that limit the time the protestors can assemble and the distance they can stand from the funeral or memorial service. According to an article from CNN, a father of a deceased soldier received a 10.9 million dollar lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church for emotional distress.
This lawsuit parallels another on protests at abortion clinics. An article found on firstamendmentcenter.org shows the contradictions in the results of the cases. Judge Daniel Middlebrooks ruled that the law which states that protesters had to assemble twenty-feet from abortion clinics is unconstitutional. This is an example of how each free speech case is decided by whatever the judge feels, and not by the constitution.Hurtful speech is still free speech. It is true that if someone continually emotionally abuses someone that person is committing a crime, but protests are not equal to this. Any group of people who have something to protest about should be able to do so, even if the speech is not accepted by the majority. The forefathers of this country wrote the constitution for each and every American. The lawmakers and judges of today should not override them and silence even the most ludicrous citizens. As Noam Chomsky once stated, “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”
The federal government should create the laws of free speech. The inconsistencies in each city, district, and state confuse the debate. The government should never be allowed to silence people, but there should be restrictions on distance from certain places. These private places include funerals, churches, hospitals, abortion clinics, and homes. The lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church is unconstitutional and ridiculous. It is time for the government to take control of this debate and constitutionally limit free speech.
information found: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)