Hate Speech Protected--As It Should Be

Let's get this out of the way right up front. I hate the decision in the Westboro Baptist Church case just decided by the United States Supreme Court. I agree with it, but I hate it. In other words, like the Justices, I had to swallow my emotions and disgust with the loathsome words and behavior and look to the Constitution as the sole arbiter of the issue.

Subsequent to the decision, I also have to swallow my emotions and disgust with the "Church's" statement that as a result of the decision, they would quadruple the protests at military funerals. But even at that, I still support the decision. As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, I find all hate speech statutes anathema, since the Founders'specific purpose was to protect unpopular and even hateful political or religious speech. Popular or kindly speech needs little protection, but the Founders themselves were threatened and even jailed for speaking out against the King and Parliament. Some of that speech was potentially subversive (and did indeed spur a Revolution) and it was certainly hateful to both King and Parliament.

Though there was no hate speech statute involved in this decision, the issue is the same, and should be the basis in the future for striking all hate speech laws. As one conservative writer said very succinctly, "bags of scum have free speech rights, too." In this case, the matter revolved around a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs had demanded compensation from the religious nutcases for the grief they suffered during their son's funeral. Had these been purely personal attacks, the result might have been different. But the high court found that the major elements of the protests were [crazed] religious statements about matters of public concern.

Follow the logic: These are religious nuts, but we don't distinguish between sane and semi-insane religious groups (if we did, the Muslims and the Scientologists would be long gone). They have loudly expressed their opinion that the public acceptance of homosexuality is calling down the wrath of God on America. The military is always a matter of serious public concern, and the Westboro bullies have magnified their belief by stating that military acceptance of homosexuality by the armed services brings America ever-closer to Armageddon. By constitutional standards that gives us the double-whammy of free speech (on political matters) and religious freedom (condemnation of homosexuality as a sin). The Justices had no genuine choice if they were to obey their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Even the devil tells the truth when it suits his purpose, so I find myself in agreement with ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro, who said "The Court's decision properly and respectfully acknowledges the Snyder family's grief. But it correctly holds that the response to that grief cannot include abandonment of core First Amendment principles designed to protect even the most unpopular speech on matters of public concern."

Military families who have objected to the decision have the high moral ground, but miss the entire point of the decision. One spokesman, John Ellsworth, whose son was killed in Iraq, unintentionally included the reason for the decision in his heartfelt attack on it. He said "The First Amendment right that members of the Westboro Baptist Church community haphazardly enjoy is protected every day by the brave men and women whose funerals they protest." Absolutely true, but the emotion understandably overcomes his thinking. Those brave men who gave their lives for the defense of freedom and American values were fighting in large part for those very basic fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. They didn't pick and choose whom to protect--they protected everyone, including these subhuman hate-mongers. They put their lives on the line for constitutional principles, where most of us will only talk about it.

I have nothing negative to say about Justice Alito's sole dissent except to say that his heart was in the right place, but for once his cool and reasoned support of even inconvenient constitutional guarantees was overcome by emotion. Alito said in his dissent that the actions of the Westboro Baptists were "a vicious verbal assualt which imposed great injury to the Snyders." Again, like every word said by the Snyders and the military families, that is an absolutely valid recitation of the facts, but not an explanation for why the First Amendment shouldn't apply.

The local authorities had done what they could to keep the protesters away from the funeral itself. They set reasonable distances from the gravesite and the funeral service which the protesters obeyed, including the protest limitations, local zoning laws and police directions. I won't repeat what the spokespeople for the Westoboro lowlives said after the decision, since my ulcer is already acting up while I contemplate this constitutional necessity.

I was not so law-abiding when Rev. Phelps showed up in San Francisco to advance his message of hate. The group I was with to greet him were amazed that I still had a strong arm and excellent aim when I hit him with a rotten egg from fifty feet away (I can now admit this, since the statute of limitations has long since passed). There were others who didn't aim as well, but the volume made up for the lack of pitching skills. Phelps cowered back into his car, left the City, and never tried it again. I'm not recommending this for anyone since it carries free speech into illegal physical action, but I'd certainly understand if this were to happen in the future.

Chief Justice Roberts summed the matter up sadly and succinctly: "On the facts before us, we cannot react to [the Snyder's] 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." I hope the high court will be that clear and that concise the next time a conservative forcefully opposes affirmative action and gets charged with a racist hate speech crime for his efforts.