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.