Please read the following link describing the events around the military funeral protests done by Westboro Baptist Church:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/us/09scotus.html?scp=5&sq=westboro%20baptist%20church&st=cse
This example is a perfect reason why Unit 5 is the best (although, as the 2009/2010 alumni, we may be a little biased) and most heart-wrenching unit out there. How do you balance our freedoms with what is "acceptable" in society? Comment on your reactions to this instance, but don't just talk about how horrible these signs are--think about instances where freedom of speech should be limited. Imagine if the funeral was for a mass murderer, and the people protesting had non-violent signs about world peace.
Signing off:
Unit 5
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I can see where protesting is completely constitutional, I do believe that someone's rights ends where another's begins and the fact that these people are going around causing emotional stress and evident discomfort on the families of these people, I feel, is completely unconstituional. It is harassment, and I feel so bad for this father. Not only did he have to bury his own son, but he has to deal with these people slandering him, his son, and his family.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that protesting at anybody’s funeral is not only distasteful but also disrespectful, it is still fully constitutional. The first amendment clearly states that every U.S citizen has the right to “peaceably assemble” and protest their idea, whatever that may be. As far as I am concerned, this instance of protest at this funeral is disrespectful, but its constitutionality cannot be questioned. No matter how bad it makes people feel or how much stress it brings, there is no law against it. If there was, then we would see some new permutation of the alien and sedition acts is effect.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even though there are no laws that prohibit protesting or assembling at a funeral, it is clear that it is discourteous and rude towards the dead but also towards all those that believed the dead fought for a valid cause. In the instance of the anti-war protesters, they could have easily assembled somewhere else, perhaps in front of a government building or something of the sort. The short point is that they were being rude, by protesting in a manner and at a location that would in no way further their agenda, but rather offend all those around them. This protest has brought shame to the Westboro Baptist Church, because they have inadvertently put forth an image of their church that is demeaning and uncouth.
As this is a disgraceful action and insult to our own country, this is indeed a Constitutionally acceptable prerogative. Although I do not fully understand the terms of the funeral, as it stands all people are allowed to express their minds in public areas. The potential dilemma I see with this issue as well is whether to consider the actual funeral and burying of an individual a private party due to only inviting certain guests because military cemeteries are open to the public at large. The parallels between this case and the Falwell one in the 80's are prevalent, and previously having focused on this case for a presentation in AP US makes me ponder the issue even more. According to the decision by the Court then, whatever was published by Hustler magazine was considered a matter of opinion, and therefore full truthfulness and not slander towards Falwell in any way. While "God Hates You" may not be true, it is definitely an expression of a belief by an individual, and furthermore not published to the general public.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is simply that opinion is opinion and that is guarded in the United States. As illogical as soldiers in Iraq dieing for homosexuality sins (apparently whether or not the soldier practiced this behavior) does not seem an apparent link to me, but cannot be disproved at the time. As shameful as this is to hear about, the bounds of having a funeral is that it is now seen as a public assembly and whatever is written is opinion, and therefore truth, and can be displayed and seen by all.
Yes, unfortunately this instance of protest is constitutional. Due to the horrid degredation of the soldier's funeral, and other similar occurrences in America, it seems like changes need to be made to the Constitution. Perhaps, a clause should be made to judge the morality of the group of people protesting. Sure, protesting in the street is fine or like Conner said, "in front of a government building," but protesting at a funeral for a soldier who has just given his life for the United States is complete idiocracy. The audacity of the Baptists to reek emotional trauma upon the family is ineffible. How is it possible that a group who believes in salvation through faith alone, can perform such an act? It seems only logical that their morality and intent be called into question. What I do not understand is how protesting at a funeral will force America to discourage homosexuality. More than anything it seems like the group from the Baptist Church is way too far right on the political scale and should not be taken seriously. It is for this reason that the constitution needs to be changed; making an amendment to say what is morally acceptable, or simply giving the court the power to judge what is acceptable. This way, radicals will not be able to protest in certain ways because they can and it is constitutional. With this change, demonstrations and such would not occur at such inappropriate places, like funerals. In conclusion, the churches actions were morally unjustifiable and should not have had the opportunity to protest at the soldier's grave.
ReplyDeleteIn America, I believe that Protesting is completely Constitutional- In any form. Although Mr. Snyder's case is abhorring, he still cannot fight the fact that protesting is and has been one of America's rights since our founding. Hoowever, I cannot fathom just how pathetic those protestors are, saying "God Hates You" and "Thank God for Dead Soliders." Because of instances like these, I do believe that freedom of speech should be drawn back, only a little.While doing so, on must remember that to strict a change could result in public uprising, while to lenient a change will only allow more "Snyder vs. Phelps" cases to occur. The solution; add the golden rule- Do onto others what you would have onto you. At the courts discretion, I believe that they may cosider whether a case is constitutional, and whether it was fair as well. In Snyders case, I believe they would have pushed away protestors, because they would have realized that although it IS constitutional for them to be there, everyone deserves a peaceful funeral. The fact that he was homosexual dosen't help the protestors case. Although they may be somewhat segregated in America, they are people too. They deserve human rights just a much as any of those unruly protestors out there. The inclusion of homosexuals in the United States Society can only be achieved with one thing- the passing of homosexual marrige laws to the Constitution. This would allow for these protesting, stone age thinking, church goers to finally think with everyone else, in the 21st century. Just as the separations of church and state, we must throw out church viewpoints, as they always hinder societal growth (besides 15th century Europe) If we do so, and allow Homosexuals every right that everyone else has, then, with time, we won't see demonstrations like "Snyder vs. Phelps" anymore. I mean, you don't see Catholics going aroung schools anymore with signs protesting that the Earth is in the center of the universe!
ReplyDeleteOnly with drastic changes like these, will people like Snyder be able to go to their own son's funeral, peacefully, without protestors having "tarnished the memory of [his] son’s last hour on earth." Only then will protesting truly be constitutional.
I will not go in to extreme detail for this particular point, as i feel many of the posts above have already done a very successful job, but I am in agreement with many when I say that I believe the protests to be completely constitutional. Despite the extreme absurdities being expressed by these "peaceful" protests, they have full right under the constitution to express their own opinions in such a manner, and although on a personal level I do not believe they should persist in inspiring such hate, I do believe that they should be allowed to do so if they choose. The first amendment, I believe, is truly one of the most significant concepts ever to be adopted by the human race, and every single person is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how wrong it may seem to everyone else. As long as they are expressing themselves in a peaceful manner, they should be allowed to continue.
ReplyDeleteThis concept works both ways, however. Through drawing attention to themselves in such a manner, this particular church has received a lot of attention, much of which is justifiably negative. The beauty of freedom of speech is that it applies to everyone, so although that means that these people are indeed allowed to inspire such hatred, they are in a very small minority. This means that by banding together, others have all the same rights to protest and express their angst against this church, which I would encourage everyone to do. If the people of this church have the right to protest at funerals, that means that the general public has full right to expose the horrors of this church to the rest of the country, and to the world. By getting the evils of this church out there with our rights of freedom of speech, perhaps enough bad word about this church could get out that it would truly be silenced once and for all when a vast majority bands together to express their discontent with their actions. In this manner, the rights of absolutely no one would need to be infringed, and the church's voice would be rendered useless, in the way in which the hateful ideals expressed by the Ku Klux Klan hold little to no merit in the public eye today, as they once did. Before considering altering the first amendment, one must first consider the ramifications this could have on everyone's freedom of speech, and one must also consider, as I've proposed, how pure freedom of speech can be used to balance out those views generally considered immoral that such small groups hold.
On a more personal note, I also believe the views expressed by the church are disgustingly hypocritical. The reason that these people are allowed to spew such hateful messages in a public setting at all is all due to the first amendment of the constitution which is completely based off of the basic human rights of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In my opinion, nothing infringes upon the pursuit of happiness more than telling people who they can or can't love, as it is my view that love is truly a great gateway toward self-fulfillment and thus happiness. Therefore, by these West Burrow attendees trying to deny gays the right to not only marry but be together at all, they are infringing upon the natural rights highlighted by the constitution. In this manner, the members of the church are abusing the constitution by using it's own first amendment to try and spread anti-constitutional messages, which I find horridly hypocritical.
I disagree with the idea that this act of protest is constitutional. The first amendment provides "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I think the protesters violated this right in two respects. First, I don't believe that this instance of protest and exercising free speech qualifies as "peaceful." Interrupting a funeral and causing emotional distress to a grieving father whose son has bravely and loyally served our country doesn't strike me as an appropriate or respectful way to exercise these rights. Furthermore, this seems to take away the father’s right to the pursuit of happiness, since almost a year after the incident, he claimed that the protests “continue to haunt and disturb him.” The second violation that I see is that the protestors have the right to “petition the government,” but it is unclear whether there were any government representatives present at the time. This is why the father claims that the protesters “intentionally inflicted emotional distress.” So although the protesters followed the law and kept an appropriate distance away from the ceremony, I believe that on a deeper level, they have in fact violated the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteWhile on an emotional level I am shocked and appalled that anyone in the United States would ever picket a funeral for a soldier, I am forced to comply with the constitution in the matters of free speech.
ReplyDeleteThe Forefathers of America gave the citizens the right to protest and speech because the oppressiveness of the British. They created those rules so that anyone can maintain any formulated opinion they choose.
In today's society, it is more important than ever that we maintain our personal freedoms, regardless of any minor mishaps. Because if we ended up in a totalitarian society that the Central Government watches our every move, we lose the freedom that was intended for America.
The Fore bearers never would have imagined the nation in the state it is today. We will never know exactly what they would do in this situation, we know their ideas on the constitutionality of freedoms and under no circumstance would they write those essential rights off to appease any one group (In this case the general public). While I in no way agree with the Baptist's actions,creating exceptions to the constitutional rule would undermine the root causes of the Nation we love for its inherent freedom.
The freedom of speech was not violated in this case because the protestors have the right to peacefully speak their opinion. They abided by the laws and the police’s instructions therefore making their actions constitutional. To rule against them in a lawsuit would limit their right to the freedom of speech. The father’s claim that the picketers were attempting to cause him and his family emotional harm doesn’t seem valid when the picketers didn’t know the family and had protested in the past at multiple funerals. It would appear that they were trying to make a point, not inflict emotional harm. However, in my opinion this was not the place to protest war or voice other personal beliefs. The family already had to deal with their son’s passing and they didn’t need the trauma of protestors at the funeral. It is morally wrong to display demeaning signs at the funeral of a man who died fighting for his country. Unfortunately, the constitution does not outline moral standards that its citizens must adhere to. Therefore, there is no legal action the government is able to take because there was no violation of the constitution. Morality needs to be self-monitored. Freedom of speech should be limited when knowledge of a fact or event could cause danger to the citizens of a society.
ReplyDeleteWhile many before me have disagreed, I believe there is no legality in the protests at Snyder's funeral. The basis of my conclusion rests on the psychological harm done to Mr. Snyder. Many have and will focus on the idea that the freedom of speech applies to all manners of public speaking, however, this statement is false. According to Maryland law harassment is illegal. This is seen from the 2001 court case in which George Galloway Jr. was found guilty of harassment due to sending over 100 letters to his ex-girlfriends house. Article 27 of Maryland code forbids a person from purposely engaging in acts that "seriously annoys another person." Not only was Mr. Snyder annoyed, but he was shocked and hurt to the point of emotional distress. Thereby Maryland law dictates that Mr. Snyder has full rights to sue the people of westboro church. The fact that a similar court case has gone to trial with George Galloway reveals the constitutionality of the Maryland law.
ReplyDeleteSome might argue that it is constitutional based on the constitutionality of the Hustler case. However, this case is irrelevant to the current situational differences between Hustler and the members of Westboro church. The Hustler is not only defended by the first amendment's section on freedom of speech, as has been previously argued, but also by the section of freedom of the press. The intention of a magazine is to spread information, while the intention of the picketers can be argued to be that of attempting to hurt individuals. The sheer difference in the purposes, along with the dynamic of the two bodies, cancels any possible connection between the two cases. Therefore, the prior court cases to SIMILAR
situations have resulted in a victory of the victim of the harassment. This means that the protesters of Westboro should be found guilty of harassment and therby resulting in a victory for mr. Snyder, on the basis of Maryland law.
Although I completely disagree with the morality of the protests, as it is just cruel to inflict such emotional distress on the day of a funeral, the length of my contitutional knowledge suggests that the protesters had the right to be there. The whole church ideas are, in my opinion, corrupted. However, the contitution protects there right to protest. I will not go into more detail for the above comments go over them nicely and with detailed observation.
ReplyDeleteThe actions demonstrated by the protesters are perturbing, however, they are legal. Presently, their actions are protected because they "addressed matters of general interest". Generally, I don't think people are interested in personally attacking individuals. Yet, Lance seems to have be the scapegoat, the allegory, representing something larger than himself, but that does not diminish the pain and suffering Mr. Snyder is forced to continually endure. It is hard enough as it is have to bury a child, many claim that it is the most painful experience any human being can live through. It is my personal belief that Mr. Synder is entitled to sue for emotional distress because though, we as Americans, have the obligation and responsibility to exercise our rights (such as the right to protest), the Constitution never presented us with a free ticket to abandon our morality, ethics, and humanity.
ReplyDeleteWhile, the protestors do have a right to freely express their own beliefs there is a line that they have crossed by targeting the innocent family. A family that was still mouring the recent loss of their son. Although, the protestors maintained a distance they were in fact harrassing the poor father and inflicting permanent emotional damage. If everyone was to portray their own belief systems in this fashion it would cause more and more conflicts, but in this case, in comparison to others, there is only a small group of people affected by the protesting. All in all the protesters were out of line, they didn't care about the affect of their protetsing would be on this innocent family.
ReplyDeleteThe protestors did have the right to protest at the funeral, however, their right should be limited when their accusations cause direct distress to a person. The protestors did not know the family of the dead soldier; they did not know if the family supported homosexuals or not, and therefore they did not have enough information to insult the memory of a fallen soldier who was innocently defending his country. If these protestors do not like how this country respects diversity, they should move their church to a country that better supports their beliefs. They have the right to protest, but in a situation such as this, the disrespect shown is enough to make limitations necessary to maintain reason.
ReplyDeleteI found that this was a horribly disrespectful action on the part of the protesters and although their rights should be upheld there should be some sort of boundary as to hhow far this can go. Commenting on Connor's post the clause could protect not only those voicing their opinion but also those being attacked.There needs to be some sort of limit as to how far each side can go and a balance with American citizens. The protesters should not lose their rights but those opposed should have their own rights seen. It seems sad and ironic that the opposers would want to take away the right of those attending the funeral. A balance is needed so the clause within the amendment would be great addition to the rights of American citizens.
ReplyDelete