The United States Supreme Court recently upheld the rights of members of a Baptist church to protest at the site of funerals of American soldiers. The justices ruled 8 to 1 that the protestors were allowed to shout statements such as “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “AIDS cures fags”, based upon the First Amendment. While such statements may seem hateful and unjustified, enduring offensive speech is the sacrifice that we must make as members of a free society.
At first glance, the angry slogans of the Baptist church members may seem like the sort of vicious attack that should be outlawed in a civil society. After all, the soldiers who were being buried at these funerals were young men and women who had made the ultimate sacrifice in order to protect the freedom and values of their country. Their families had gathered to honor their sacrifice, and they did not deserve to have these ceremonies disrupted by vicious and bigoted attacks. However, had the Supreme Court banned the protester’s right to free speech, they would have jeopardized the very values for which these young soldiers died.
Freedom of speech was so important to the founding father’s that they dedicated the First Amendment to its protection. The founding fathers lived much of their lives within a society that did not allow free -speech—a society in which members were persecuted for speaking against the tyranny of the British king. The founding fathers had the courage to speak against the king despite the risks, and eventually forged a new society in which citizens were allowed to speak their minds and have their voices heard without penalty. To ban free speech—even speech that may seem misguided and hateful—would be to break with the traditions upon which this nation was founded.
It is in this light that we should view, with some skepticism, the passage of laws that bans “hate speech”. Laws against hate speech in the United States generally ban verbal or written statements that insight hatred or violence against individuals based upon their race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. These sorts of laws put two of America’s core values into conflict; tolerance, and freedom. America is a diverse country, composed of immigrants from all corners of the world. It is important that we learn to respect our differences. But this tolerance may at times conflict with personal freedom. America has always prized individual freedom, granting citizens the right to free speech, free assembly, the pursuit of happiness etc. As a society, we must acknowledge that we cannot always have it both ways. If you have truly free speech, people may at times say harsh, intolerant things, and if we ban such statements, we limit the freedom of people to express themselves. Given this dilemma, it is best to follow the wisdom of our founding fathers and protect the First Amendment and the right to free speech.
As traumatizing as it may be to listen to verbal attacks at the funerals of those who have fought for our country, it is the price that we all must pay as members of a free society. As Chief Justice John Roberts stated in the hearing, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker". By tolerating hateful speech, we protect the liberty of every citizen to speak his or her mind.
I agree that we should hold true to the values on which this country was built. But do you honestly ever think that the Founding Fathers would fathom a group of religious protesors yelling "AIDS cures fags" at a funeral honoring those who fought and died for the rights of their fellow citizens?
ReplyDeleteI don't.
The treatment of those who rally, speak out, or attempt grand gestures at the expense of another person making an opinion is an interesting, and often frustrating issue that helps to solidify one of the laws that makes America so great. It’s frustrating because of the manner these protestors often choose to make their statement, and often the moment they choose to. People, who throw eggs or shoes at controversial speakers, especially when they are guests of a campus or an institute, are choosing to show their opinion in the most juvenile way possible. Grand statements like that or throwing fake blood on people wearing fur only serve to make the accusers argument seem invalid or crazy, when in fact they often have important points to make.
ReplyDeleteStill, just as the controversial speaker should be allowed to speak, so to should the controversial activist on the other side be allowed to boo or turn their backs? This is a fact that makes America truly great, and any attempt to compromise it would be a step down a path that could lead to the destruction of the press and personal liberties. Heck, the founding and essential act of protest in this country was when a bunch of rich men dressed up like Native Americans and unlawfully destroyed barrels of tea. It is not the governments, and especially not this particular D.A. from Orange County, job to protect its citizens from appearing as ignorant or failing to make a valid point in an effective manner besides making a lot of noise without any semblance of substance. It is, however their job to protect a citizens right to that very same ignorance, and ensure that they can be as ineffective as they choose to be, no matter whom it offends.