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.