I’m not qualified to judge the legal merits of the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter of Albert Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church today, but that won’t stop me from expressing my moral horror at what seems to me a deeply perverse and dangerous ruling.
World Magazine reports:
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, concluding that under the First Amendment, even despicable speech is protected if it concerns a public matter. “A group of parishioners standing at the very spot where Westboro stood, holding signs that said ‘God Bless America’ and ‘God Loves You,’ would not have been subjected to liability,” he wrote. “It was what Westboro said that exposed it to tort damages.” But Roberts acknowledged that the speech itself was odious: “Westboro believes America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro.”
The opinion noted that the case was decided based on the specific circumstances of Matthew Snyder’s funeral, and shouldn’t be construed as a broad ruling. Westboro protestors stood on a public sidewalk more than 1,000 feet from the funeral, complying with local laws. Albert Snyder reportedly only saw the tops of the signs at the funeral, and didn’t see what they said until afterward, meaning he wasn’t a “captive audience,” Roberts wrote, a condition for the court to restrict speech.
As a non-lawyer, what I see here is a symptom of a larger problem in American life. There seems to be a greater concern with satisfying “jot and tittle” legal points, than with doing justice. Jesus said, “You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.” (Matthew 23:23)
In order for society to work, the people need to believe, a) that the laws are for their protection, and b) that the people who administer the law are morally sane.
It seems to me this decision calls both principles into question.
I could find a bright side in this decision, if I wanted to. I could say, “Well, if the detestable expressions of Westboro Baptist Church are legally protected, my own politically incorrect speech is probably pretty safe.”
But I cannot feel that way.
I will not feel that way.
In any case, the protection of an insane legal system is not be relied on.
I wrote about “zero tolerance” rules a few days ago, how authorities are more and more enforcing rules without thought or sympathy, regardless of the harm it may do.
This decision looks to me like an instance of the same thing. They upheld the letter of the statute. They missed (I would contend) its purpose entirely.
Our judicial system, to all appearances, has utterly abandoned its mandate (which I consider a divine mandate) to restrain evil. It’s possible to nurture discussion and debate about the most radical and controversial issues, while still preventing people from purposely causing children to cry.
One of my favorite moments of drama in Scripture comes from the story of David. The prophet Nathan comes to the king, to confront him over his sins of adultery and murder. He engages the king’s emotions by telling a story about a rich man who, instead of killing one of the sheep out of his own vast flocks to feed a guest, steals a poor man’s only sheep, a family pet.
David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”
Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:5-7)
The members of Westboro Baptist Church have no pity. More and more in our culture, I fear, we are at the mercy of people who have no pity.
Without personal repentance personal humility and compassion and mercy is nearly impossible.
I have to disagree with you: That strange family which call themselves a church, headed by a Democrat party activist, is vile, BUT the right to freedom of speech does not depend on whether or not it is popular speech. It is precisely unpopular speech that needs the protection.
This ruling should get rid of the unconstitutional speech-free zones around abortion clinics and politicians.
Funerals ought to be held in churches, which would keep the Phelps family out.
This would be a “right” not granted in any other place. Any limits on freedom of assembly because of the potential to hurt others’ feelings negates the point of both the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech.Someone will always have their feelings hurt. As long as the “protests” are respecting property rights, they must be allowed. Anything else other than protection of this will lead to a curtailment of similar rights in the future.
How about the “Framers’ Intention” test? Do you think this is what the Framers had in mind? I think one can question this interpretation of freedom of speech in precisely the same way one can reasonably question the right to publish pornography.
Can I make a request of all y’all?
Stop referring to the odious Fred Phelps clan as a “church.” I don’t particularly care that they call themselves the “Westboro Baptist Church;” they are neither “Baptist,” nor a “church” by any reasonable definitions of those words.
On the other hand, “the odious Fred Phelps clan” works pretty well.
I have leaned to the side saying these people’s ridiculous protests must be protected for the sake of freedom of speech, but Lars’ last point about the Framer’s Intent is a good one. We may be swelling to a minor crisis of protest in our country. Some people are taking their protest rallies onto the private yards of the public figures they oppose. That’s immoral. It is another example of the strain on our laws when we are immoral citizens. Wasn’t it Adams or Madison who said our constitution is suitable for a moral, religious people and no other?
Though I don’t know the pertinent details, I think a good sheriff could run these people, saying they were disturbing the peace.
I have to side with the Supreme Court on this one. If the government can regulate speech that I find distasteful, they can also regulate my speech if someone else finds it distasteful.
This touches on Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. 500 years ago, he noted major differences between how God rules his heavenly kingdom and how earthly governments rule temporal jurisdictions. Where the Kingdom of Heaven is ruled by Grace, earthly governments have been given the sword to maintain order in society. The big error comes when we reverse the tools and either try to bring order through grace, which only allows those with evil hearts to reign unchallenged, or we try to change hearts through the application of the sword. The sword can only control external behavior, it cannot change men’s hearts.
I basically agree with Lars and Phil…especially on their basic stand and then on the “founders intent” stand.
Now I must throw in the old, “However” What do we do when an “odious Fred Phelps clan” type says to the world/government, “Hey! You! Lars, Phil…I am offended and hurt by what your blog says. I want to have you removed from the net and have you all pay me $5M to punish you for making me feel so badly!!”
I would hope you guys would fight this “odious” fellow with the constitutional right of freedom of speak/expression.
I hate porn! I hate what “odious Fred” has done.
I saw some protesters at a cemetery carrying signs against the soldier being buried there. I hated what they were doing.
I wish all that could be out-lawed! But, where does it stop? Who is the final authority to decide what is constitutional or not? (Some of the high court’s decisions aren’t my favorite, that’s for sure!)
The liberals want to get rid of all conservative talk radio shows. Many of us would like to oppose that!
I would like to get rid of liberal talk radio shows AND liberals!! But, should I be able to?
Should liberals be able to get rid of what I like?
The Framers NEVER intended so much stuff that is going on these days!!!!! They couldn’t imagine making legal what was a crime in those days. We as a nation need a happy medium in this area…let’s say we look…………………… to……………………….uh… I know! The CHRISTIAN BIBLE and take our ques from there.
The founders thought that worked pretty well. It is a pretty thoughtfully crafted work. It is applicable to most life actions…God must think it’s a pretty good Book to draw from…Ya, I’d say that’s a pretty good place to start.
IF we made the Bible the national or world law SOURCE…then the problem is much easier to live with.
OOPS! though…. which translation of the Bible to we use, KJ or NKJ????????