Supreme Court rules in favor of Westboro protesters

Wow. Generalize much?

 

I honestly thought you were smarter than that but will give the benefit of the doubt and think you were engaging in hyperbole to make an attempt at a funny but ultimately stupid point.

As far as the shitty Dire Straights song goes, the government has not banned it. A self governed council banned it but the ban has no force and the song continues to get played.

A nation that shrieks about a nipple being shown on the air sure does manage to get bent out of shape about inconsequential matters.

 

Well, maybe not an entire nation, but certainly a significant portion.

When radio broadcasters here play the uncensored "Money For Nothing" and get punished to the extent that CBS got dinged for Janet Jackson's tit, let us know, eh?

 

So a couple thoughts, for whatever they are worth (very little):

(1) To me, a Canadian-European style ban on "hate speech" offends my desire for notice more than it offends my desire for unfettered speech. Or at least just as much. Anyone who read the gambling thread over on Journalism Topics knows that I have a fetish for clean, enforceable lines. Any content-based restriction on speech offends that value.

What is "hate speech"? Is it hate speech when Chris Rock uses the n-word? Is it hate speech when Bill O'Reilly raises points about Muslims? Joyce Behar and Whoopi Goldberg certainly thought so.

What about telling a gay joke?

What about stating that women aren't as good as men at science and math?

What about stating a controversial opinion about Israel-Palestinian relations and their roots in the Holocaust?

What about a psychology experiment or study about the link between minority group genetics and intelligence?

"Quit being silly," you say.

"The board contrarian strikes again," you say.

Well, the last three are all, I believe, examples of speech that was turned in as "hate speech" under the University of Michigan's detailed anti-hate speech policy a few years ago. Some of it occurred in the context of graduate program classrooms.

http://politicalrights.net/doe.php

(2) Some of you have hinted that Phelps can be prosecuted under the "fighting words" exception from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Zero chance of that. Zippo. It was a throwaway line in a case that has taken on a life of its own, with absolutely no precedent to tag it to. I am not aware of a single successful prosecution under "fighting words." The Court has since narrowed it to the point that the exception is largely toothless.

 

Thanks for the response Ragu.

I got more riled up about the broad brush you used than the argument on free speech.

I think one of the differences between our attitudes on this is that the US tends to think more in absolutes and rightly or wrongly Canadians (I realize I am generalizing) will allow this intrusiveness if they feel it serves society.

Personally I am happy that an idiot like Ernst Zundel can be shut up but at the same time using the threat of hate speech prosecution to shut up political discourse that a person finds personally offensive is also something I find wrong.

We had a case in the province where I live where an anti-gay fundamentalist preacher was brought up on hate speech laws. I hated his points but thought he should not be prosecuted for it.

I know I am trying to have it both ways.

All of this being said I find Human Rights Commissions and some of the other quasi governmental regulatory bodies we have to be a detriment to society.

 

Just got the new Time Magazine, and the short write-up on the Phelps case surprises me. The tone seems very opposed to the decision:

"In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that signs like 'God hates fags' are matters of 'public import,' related to, in this case, 'homosexuality in the military.'"

"America, Roberts wrote, 'has long chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues.' Even at the expense of a father's pain."

That's the last line, the one about a "father's pain."

The writer also refers to "First Amendment fundamentalists."

Surprising tone from a news magazine.

 

I think all that you guys do when you scramble to shut these people up with the force of law is lend merit to their opinions that they don't deserve.

 

From seeing that video, it's obvious that the Phelps clan has money. They can travel all over the country, live in what appear to be nice middle class houses and can feed fairly large families. How do they get their money? I would hope the market could take care of this problem pretty quickly - where do they work? Boycott/picket it until they all get fired. If they own their own businesses, a national campaign to boycott to those businesses would also be pretty effective. If you cut off their revenue streams, they can't pull this crap any more.

 

You're probably not wrong but there is a stand to be made.

 

That's why there are counter-protests. And newspaper editorial pages.

 

I can't help but wonder if, secretly, they were hoping to lose this case. They were hoping that the Supreme Court would rule against them, limit their "right to free speech" and set precedent for who knows what down the road. At the very least, every time they picketed a funeral, and I can't imagine they'd stop, they'd draw all sorts of attention for their protest and arrest.

As it stands, they'll be remembered (or, more likely forgotten) as a vile, hate-fueled organization that served as an example that pure evil can exist. But if they'd "lost" this case, they may have forever been known as the group who put a huge hole through the first amendment, and who got America to draw a line in the sand for what is and isn't "free speech." Wouldn't that - fundamentally altering the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - be a bigger win than what they're doing now?

I think if the court had ruled the other way (against Westboro) there would have been praise and acceptance from a lot of people who will understand exactly why the ruling made sense, because what the Westboro people do is deplorable and they shouldn't be allowed to spew hatred that way. And to be honest, while I would have disagreed with the ruling, as horrible as those people are, I probably would have been happy for the father who brought the case. But as years and generations pass, and the culture shifts, who knows how that precedent could be used in a different era.