Good news from Washington, D.C., for a change. And a win for limited, Constitutional federal government by a branch of said entity. The Supreme Court upheld freedom of speech with no conditions by an 8-1 decision in the Westboro case.
There's not a lot to add. You can say all you want about the nastiness of the protesters. Call it hate speech if you wish. It doesn't matter.
I recall, in my youth, when a Neo-Nazi group was allowed to march through heavily Jewish Skokie, Illinois. Much was made of their hate speech and actions, but they were given their due, both on grounds of freedom of assembly and speech.
Our system is sufficiently strong to stand the test of hate speech. What would be far worse is for the Supreme Court to begin a descent down the slippery slope of conditioning the right to freedom of speech. From there, it's only a matter of time until administrations simply censor criticism.
It was clearly painful for the family and friends of the Marine whose funeral was the subject of the hate speech, but our nation is stronger for allowing it, rather than prohibiting it.
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Monday, March 7, 2011
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Snyder Case & First Amendment Free Speech
The Snyder v. Phelps case has brought forth a wealth of arguments on both sides of the issue.
Because this free speech case involves a church funeral for a serviceman killed in action, the basic First Amendment principles have become blurred.
So much so that, as the Wall Street Journal notes,
"Forty-eight state Attorneys General filed an amicus brief in support of the Marine's father, arguing that non-media speakers should not be exempted from state tort law on First Amendment grounds. No doubt they'd love to be able to sue their political critics.
The government may not, however, expressly discourage protesters whose messages they find offensive.
The First Amendment is designed to protect even scoundrels like Mr. Phelps. Allowing concerns for emotional distress to carve out safe havens from protected speech would open the door to countless legal shenanigans, no reliable standards, and ultimately a chilling effect on political debate."
Just so. In today's environment, surely informed voters know that the least exception found which limits rights under the Constitution will, over time, be widened to be so permissive as to gut the clause or amendment in question.
Unpleasant as it may be, one has to want this case decided for Phelps and, thus, free speech.
Because this free speech case involves a church funeral for a serviceman killed in action, the basic First Amendment principles have become blurred.
So much so that, as the Wall Street Journal notes,
"Forty-eight state Attorneys General filed an amicus brief in support of the Marine's father, arguing that non-media speakers should not be exempted from state tort law on First Amendment grounds. No doubt they'd love to be able to sue their political critics.
The government may not, however, expressly discourage protesters whose messages they find offensive.
The First Amendment is designed to protect even scoundrels like Mr. Phelps. Allowing concerns for emotional distress to carve out safe havens from protected speech would open the door to countless legal shenanigans, no reliable standards, and ultimately a chilling effect on political debate."
Just so. In today's environment, surely informed voters know that the least exception found which limits rights under the Constitution will, over time, be widened to be so permissive as to gut the clause or amendment in question.
Unpleasant as it may be, one has to want this case decided for Phelps and, thus, free speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
