Although I am a fighter for the First Amendment, I do believe that there should be appropriate restrictions on these rights. This was brought to light Tuesday, when even though Missouri tried to pass a law restricting free speech within a distance of 500 feet of funeral processions. This was appealed by Shirley Roper-Phelps, the current leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, who believes military funerals should be protested, and God kills these soldiers to punish America for our degradation, mostly for harboring homosexuals. The Appellate Court of Missouri said that this law cannot be enforced until all cases have been settled. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court left this fight in limbo, as they refused to hear the case or comment. This leaves us back at square one, where this group can protest anywhere they want...and they do.
South Dakota and Michigan have successfully made these protests a misdemeanor offense. Illinois also passed a law, but the scope only extended to military funerals, but that isn't enough to keep them away. In fact, in March they protested the death of Dr. Fred Winters, a pastor who was shot inside his own church. Their detailed schedule says this about the event: "Here is the proper perspective on this whole, big stinking mess, to wit: So the shooter (sent by God) walked into the "church" (NOT!) and shot (bullet sent by God) through the false prophet's bible (probably NIV) and thereby embedded the words of that book (YIKES!) into the body of the false prophet. So is it fair to say that 'Fred Dropped Dead from a Bullet to the Head, and that book he should have read'...he died an open and shameful death." A shameful death, in his own church. How sad.
The Federation of American Scientists last year did a detailed report on the 1st Amendment and the many restrictions that it is subject to. For example, the Court has decided that the First Amendment provides no protection to obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes
“advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ... where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Although Westboro can tiptoe around these laws, and although they carry around signs that say "God blew up the troops" and "Dead fags are God's will," they are careful not to "incite" or encourage any actual crimes. However, there are other provisions set forth in the context of the First Amendment that may be able to protect us. This is the concept that we as Americans have the right to avoid such speech, and if we aren't able to avoid this speech reasonably, our rights are violated. In 1988, the Supreme Court decided that “[t]he First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech.” Frisby v. Schultz (1988)
“advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ... where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Although Westboro can tiptoe around these laws, and although they carry around signs that say "God blew up the troops" and "Dead fags are God's will," they are careful not to "incite" or encourage any actual crimes. However, there are other provisions set forth in the context of the First Amendment that may be able to protect us. This is the concept that we as Americans have the right to avoid such speech, and if we aren't able to avoid this speech reasonably, our rights are violated. In 1988, the Supreme Court decided that “[t]he First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech.” Frisby v. Schultz (1988)
This argues the prior point that we as Americans have the right to avoid speech that we feel is unwelcoming. For example, picketers can picket outside of an abortion clinic, a public area, but they cannot picket outside of the doctor's home. This is because the doctor lives there, and has no reasonable way of avoiding this speech. The only problem with this decision is the fact that this provision is vague and therefore hard to enforce. The First Amendment is a touchy subject, and people are reluctant to prosecute based on a provision with very broad verbiage. However, the funeral concept could apply here, since those going to a funeral would have no other reasonable options, as the cemetery is the only place to hold a funeral.
The only other recourse, other than reinterpreting the law as it has been written and amended by Congress, is the one that Missouri has taken. They've passed the law to make these safe zones around cemeteries (and should be extended to schools, police stations, churches, and libraries). However, one woman and her hatred for America and all of us in it, has appealed and won. And until it is settled by the Supreme Court, who didn't even as much as comment on the case, it will be unenforceable. I don't see this changing anytime soon, as the law is now in purgatory.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment