A lot can be said about Westboro Baptist Church. Despicable, cruel, objects of disgust, the lowest form of humanity, the list goes on. But none of this really compares to the one thing about them that is of note, particularity to those of us in America, and that is... patriotic.
I know that this will come as a surprise to most, maybe even upset a lot of people, especially considering that WBC often protest the funerals of fallen American Soldiers, these same soldiers who are believed to be examples of true patriotism. So for many Americans, this comparison will be very upsetting but it nonetheless needs to be said.
What does it mean to be a patriot?
Well a patriot is someone who feels strong support for their country, and in this particular case that country is America. This definition only raises more questions. What does it mean to feel strong support for America, is it simply blind admiration for our government and its officials, or is it unrelenting support for our troops engaged in combat, or is it something more?
The answer is, and must be, more. Because America is not just a collection individuals governing a nation, or an army of American citizens killing in the name OF that nation. America is, and must be, the ideals that this country was built upon, because ideals last longer than politicians, ideals last longer than wars.
But what does any of this have to do with WBC? Fair question, it has EVERYTHING to do with WBC.
The foundation of America is the right to free expression, often called free speech, it is this, the first amendment to the constitution that shaped our country It was first specifically because it is the right, that guarantees all other rights. I am reminded of a quote I once heard, though I cannot remember from where:
If I had to lose all of my rights, save one, then I would keep freedom of expression, because it is through this right that I can regain all that I lost.
The most important thing to remember is that freedom of speech is built on principle to protect unpopular speech in all its forms, because tyrants always want to control speech and cater it to their own ends, and nothing is more unpopular to tyrants than voices speaking in opposition to cruel and unjust acts.
When WBC protests the funeral of a fallen solider, regardless of how anyone feels about the act itself, that act IS a form of expression, a form a speech. Yes, it absolutely is cruel, and horrible, add the anguish and sorrow of the families that lost a son, brother, father, makes it even worse.
The pain felt by the families though cannot stand in opposition to something much greater than the loss of a loved one, who, gave their life to uphold a set of ideals, it is the very act of individual sacrifice of countless Americans that makes these ideals so great.
This brings me to my point. Who has truly done the greater harm to the memory of a fallen solider, is it the radical church group engaging and exercising that very right this solider died to defend?
Or is it the families and communities who, through their anguish, strip away and remove the right that their son, brother, father, died to defend and uphold?
To do the former is a celebration of that sacrifice.
To do the latter is to render the sacrifice in vain.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
If the constitution is like the tree of liberty, then the roots of that tree are the first amendment. To rip out the roots, kills the entire tree.
This forces us to except that freedom is a hard and bitter pill to swallow, and that in order to preserve that freedom, then we must learn to be OK with hearing things that may shock us to our very core, that WBC protests the funeral of fallen soldiers only makes the necessary burden of upholding the inalienable right to free expression ever more clear.
And this is why Westboro Babtist Church matters.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Wel,l the first thing I have to say is wow. The problem is how free speech is defined. Freedom of speech is only freedom from censoring or halting speech made by an individual by the government. Specifically the federal government. One does not have freedom of speech in general public or private situations. You may hold an opinion, and even express that opinion openly but the expression of that opinion is only protected from government interference or restriction.
The WBC defies the law in the fact that the hold rallies to disrupt a private ceremony, thus violating the rights of those involved in that ceremony. The conservative SCOTUS justices that ruled to allow WBC to carry on with their disruption did so in complete contempt of the constitution.
Freedom of speech is a protection from government silencing an individual's speech. There is no freedom of speech for disrupting a private affair.
BTW a funeral is not a celebration of a person's service, but rather honoring the life of the individual. Even a military funeral. We honor the dead, not just their act. It is not a celebration of war in any way. Yes, we acknowledge their service, their deeds, but we don't honor war.
Look at it this way. A mail carrier dies while delivering the mail. We would honor their faithful service.
I have served at many funerals where a service person died of natural causes. We honored the person.
That is a small sample of how I feel about the matter.
Thank you for your response. I appreaciate your take on what I wrote. You have given me a lot to think about, i guess it comes down to how one defines free speech, and how one judges the quality of another's expression OF free speech. Do you believe that one citizen has the right to silence or censor another citizens speech if they find it morally reprehensible?
On your comment about honoring the dead, do you mean that a funeral is not a celebration of the life of the fallen?
I mean that the funeral is not a celebration of war. People have the right to expect not to be harassed in their private affairs. Freedom of speech does not extend to people that are simply harassing people.
I cannot stand outside your private home and parade around and make disparaging remarks about you. That isn't freedom of speech, that is harassment. Even if I confine myself to the public sidewalk and use no profanity. The fact that I have targeted you is harassment.
OK, first off, if you think that I meant that a funeral is a celebration of war then I apologize, I do not believe my OP said that, but I will double check and if it did then I will correct it because that was not my intent. I would now like to take some time and address your first response in detail because I think there is a lot in there worthy of discussion and clarification. I asked for your take on what I wrote and you have given me your time to read it and offer a response and I am grateful, so I want to be clear in this exchange between us, as I have already said you have given me a lot to think about.
"The problem is how free speech is defined. Freedom of speech is only freedom from censoring or halting speech made by an individual by the government. Specifically the federal government. One does not have freedom of speech in general public or private situations. You may hold an opinion, and even express that opinion openly but the expression of that opinion is only protected from government interference or restriction."
So here is the first thing I disagree with, for the sake of honesty on my part I want to tell you that I am a free speech absolutist, so keep that in mind, I will try to acknowledge the parts of my response that are based only on my opinion and try to be as objective as possible. Since you mentioned the SCOTUS I feel it is beneficial to see what their take on the case of Snyder v. Phelps was, why it was, and how they define free speech because this is probably the most important factor in our discussion.
"The WBC defies the law in the fact that the hold rallies to disrupt a private ceremony, thus violating the rights of those involved in that ceremony. The conservative SCOTUS justices that ruled to allow WBC to carry on with their disruption did so in complete contempt of the constitution."
According to the SCOTUS:
'Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public. Speech on public issues is entitled to special protection under the First Amendment because it serves the "the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
So at least in this case they were not in contempt of the constitution, we must examine the process by which they came to this conclusion and it is important to note that the ruling was 8-1, so it cant really be said to be a conservative ruling:
To determine whether the speech dealt with matters of public concern, the Court examined the "content, form, and context" of the speech. The court noted that none of these factors determines the outcome of the case and that a court must evaluate all the circumstances of the speech, "including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said."
Even though some of the picket signs arguably targeted only the Snyder family, most of them addressed issues regarding the moral conduct of the U.S., the fate of the U.S., and homosexuality in the military. As such, the "overall thrust and dominant theme" of the speech related to broader public issues. Furthermore, the church was picketing on public land adjacent to a public street.
So to say that it was a was a "private affair" is not completely accurate, yes the funeral was private, but the placement of WBC was on public land. Finally, there was no pre-existing relationship between Westboro's speech and Snyder that might suggest that the speech on public matters was intended to mask an attack on Snyder over a private matter. Therefore, the Court held that the Phelps and his followers were "speaking" on matters of public concern on public property, and thus, were entitled to protection under the First Amendment.
A look at the majority opinion finds:
Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
A look at the dissenting opinion finds:
Justice Alito.
So now that we have examined the facts of the ruling we can move on to our difference of opinion.
"Freedom of speech does not extend to people that are simply harassing people.
I cannot stand outside your private home and parade around and make disparaging remarks about you. That isn't freedom of speech, that is harassment. Even if I confine myself to the public sidewalk and use no profanity. The fact that I have targeted you is harassment."
(Here is my opinion) What you define as harassment, and what I define as harassment is different, so much so that it cannot be used as a means of determining what is or is not free speech, as I have already shown, free speech IS protected on public lands and this idea that it is only to keep one safe from the government is simply not true. Free speech is a responsibility that we all share, if one is willing to relinquish that right all for the sake of being respectful, which is itself vague, then the right itself is worthless. and in this case the feelings of one trumps the rights of us all, and this cannot be the case.
So I ask you again, in your opinion, do you think that one citizen has the right to censor another citizen if they find their speech to be morally reprehensible? Because it seems to me that you do, and if so, how do you justify taking a position that is counter to the very principle of free speech?
( source used in my response http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/fac... )
I share much of your concern for free speech, but I have come to understand that it only protects public speaking in that a government cannot halt free expression of free thought. Now as for WBC. Maybe they were within the confines of the law. I'm sure that in their zeal they crossed it but got away with that digression.
So you did the research and I thank you for that. I have not reviewed that case for some years now. I remember that I was appalled by the ruling at the time.
It is amazing to me that I cannot go downtown and just start screaming F this and F that without being arrested and fined, but a group of nuts can denigrate people because of who they are and get away with it. Something is wrong with that picture.
I am reminded of David Hume's is/ought distinction, that is to say how something IS vs how it OUGHT to be. How it is, is that WBC can protest and say horrible things and it's protected under the first amendment, which is feel is important, but how it ought to be, is they have the decency to not be a total piece of shit and leave the family of fallen solders to greave in peace, and keep their protest to a time when the funeral has passed, or if they must do it then, move to the opposite side of town. Because if they were serious about getting their message across and wanted people to be convienced, it makes no sense to take an approach that is gaurenteed to not only turn people away but to piss them off. So it stands to reason that the only way to combat them when they protest funerals is to rally people to come out and 'counter protest' to block them from view from the funeral itself. That way they are beat at their own game, and their horrible signs cannot be seen.
Double post, edited to remove.
I just had a look at the WBC website. The photos on there are shocking. It's one thing for adults (well in the case of WBC, let's just say people over 18) to express their views, but to involve young children in their hate campaigns is unforgiveable. That's child abuse.
As much as I despise the words and actions of these people, I would oppose any restriction of their freedom of speech for two reasons. First, "hate speech" is too difficult and fuzzy to define, so it's very easy to use hate speech laws to limit legitimate debate and inquiry. Second, when you have something as perverted and venomous as the WBC in your community, you want them out in the open where everyone can keep an eye on them. Restrictions would simply push them underground and give them a false sense of martyrdom.
The cure for diseases like the WBC is laughter and satire. What I see in the WBC is a group of people who are scared mindless that they may have the same urges and desires that they condemn in others. There's enough material there for an entire Monty Python series.
Yes, the WBC is really an expression of the lowest form of human garbage, they are a joke on society, I really like what you said here:
"When you have something as perverted and venonous as the WBC in your community, you want them out in the open where everyone can keep an eye on them. Restrictions would simply push them underground and give them a false sense of martyrdom.
The cure for diseases like the WBC is laughter and satire."
Only through mockery can we rid ourselves of these trolls, because the more we collectively laugh at them, the less likely anyone will take them seriously, and they will slowly fade out of existence by the overwhelming force of social progress.
AlphaLogica: "A lot can be said about Westboro Baptist Church. Despicable, cruel, objects of disgust, the lowest form of humanity, the list goes on. But none of this really compares to the one thing about them that is of note, particularity to those of us in America, and that is... patriotic."
I beg to differ. We have skinheads, KKK, racists of all sorts that stretch the limits of free speech. Of course, I place WBC in the same category. All of these groups call for the destruction of our nation. This is not patriotic. They are not the patriots. WBC does not support Free Speech. They simply hate and are abusing the system to express that hate. If believers of Free Speech suffer these miserable assholes because they support Free Speech to the extreme then they are the patriots not the offenders.
Addendum : I also do not think WBC matters at all. Along with the KKK they serve no human purpose. The earth would be a far better place if they had never existed or if today they would all convert to humanism or kick off.
@chimp3
"I beg to differ. We have skinheads, KKK, racists of all sorts that stretch the limits of free speech. Of course, I place WBC in the same category. All of these groups call for the destruction of our nation. This is not patriotic. They are not the patriots. WBC does not support Free Speech. They simply hate and are abusing the system to express that hate. If believers of Free Speech suffer these miserable assholes because they support Free Speech to the extreme then they are the patriots not the offenders."
Well to start I agree with your sentiments towards WBC, but I challenge your assertion that they do not matter, it is precisely because they stretch the limits of free expression that they matter. Because they force us to ask ourselves a very important question; Do we seek only to pay lip service to the principle of free speech, or do we seek to live up to the principle of free speech? Because we cannot have it both ways. It is the same as in the Islamist standing in front of the White House calling for the removal of our democratic government, and placing in its stead a Caliphate. I despise theocracy in any form, yet to me part of living in our democracy demands that we allow him to do so unobstructed. Because if we were to stop him, then we show through our actions that we do not REALLY believe in freedom of expression, and instead that we only like to tell ourselves that we do. Either free speech is unlimited or its not free, and often people miss the point of just where the responsibility lies.
Most believe that the responsibility is on the speaker, to cater their message to anyone who may be listening, for fear of giving offense. But this cannot be the case, the responsibility is on the listener to calibrate how it is they receive this message and react accordingly. An example of this is in the famous line about yelling fire in a crowded theater, most will tell you that this cannot be done because the panic of the crowd will lead to people being trampled.
But this misses the point.
The responsibility is not on the one who yelled fire, the responsibility is on the crowd, who, after hearing fire yelled out, to react accordingly and NOT panic and trample over one another.
Even though what WBC says is, again, morally reprehensible, it is our responsibility to listen, regardless of whether or not we like what they are saying, because even if they are wrong 90% of the time, we not only owe it to them, but to ourselves to listen for that occasional 10% they got right. This is what it REALLY means to live up to the principle of free speech. And this is why WBC matters. Because those who seek to silence WBC today, may very well seek to silence us tomorrow, and this is not a slippery slope, but a greased stained precipice, where those who claim only the best of intentions are jumping at the bit to throw us all over the edge.
I agree WBC has a right to speech. Their cause has no redeeming value. It is not.my responsibility to listen to anything they say. I prefer supporting free speech challenges by artists, comedians, philosophers, and activists that , when successful , leave our world with a more expanded , open place. I will fight for a Lenny Bruce or Pussy Riot any day over a closed minded hate filled despot with intentions of destroying liberty.
The value of their cause is not the issue, because what you deem to be 'of value' and i deem to be 'of value' could very well be completely different (I think WBC has no value at all by the way) Now you already said that WBC has a right to speech, which is something I am glad we agree on.
"I prefer supporting free speech challenges by artists, comedians, philosophers,... I will fight for a Lenny Bruce or Pussy Riot any day over a closed minded hate filled despot with intentions of destroying liberty."
We should be hesitant to practice selective listening on our parts, another reason why I said it is our responsibility to listen to what they are saying is very crucial one. Algebe summed it up best in his/her comment about needing to keep them out in the open, we need to listen to them, so we can be sure to take appropriate actions to counter their speech with speech of our own.
But if we do not listen, then what they say goes unchallenged and this, for the most part, creates the illusion of public consensus on their behalf, because in the eyes of most people, if we do not challenge them, then we must agree with them. To end I want to add a quote by Noam Chomsky that I think is appropriate:
If you do not support free speech for those you despise, then you do not support free speech at all.
I support free speech without restraint. The important thing about WBC is they need to shrivel up and die. They use up way to much oxygen . Saying we need assholes like them around to appreciate our freedoms is like saying we need a Nazi Holocaust to appreciate tolerance and peace.
Or that we need a Joseph Stalin to appreciate freedom and liberty.
Putting that false equivalence aside, let me ask you a question. Would you support banning WBC and forbidding them from have protests at all?
And yes, they are nessacary, as a reminder that freedom of speech must extend to those we dispise, if we justify passing laws against them, then we have given all the justification required for the next group to pass laws against us.
'must extend to those we dispise"
That's a straw man. No one said anything about despise. Nor does despising someone have anything to do with it. Neither Joseph or the Nazis were nessasary. That's a load of horse crap.
"No one said anything about despise."
My god can you not take the time to read the comments?
I said this:
To end I want to add a quote by Noam Chomsky that I think is appropriate:
If you do not support free speech for those you despise, then you do not support free speech at all.
So, now that you have seen your mistake, I hope you have the honesty to admit it.
My mistake is thinking your quit was aimed directly at what people had said(I.e: Despise.)
Your mistake is not removing this irrelevancy from the quote.
How is a quote specifically concerning the topic of free speech irrelevant to a discussion...ON FREE SPEECH? Go away, you are only trying to burn down this thread with your flaming bullshit.
I would not support a ban against them. I would also defend their right to speak along with a sincere desire they shrivel up and die. They are enemies of freedom. We have history to provide counterpoint to liberty. We no longer need living examples of tyranny.
OK so to continue with our discussion, which I want to thank you for having the decency to have a civil disagreement. I do not want the bullshit put forth by Nylar and Xavier to get in the way.
So you and I agree that banning them is wrong, and we should defend their right to speak. But where we seem to mainly disagree is just on what value they posses in our society. You think that history is enough of an example to get the point across. The reason why I disagree with that is because history is so far removed from the present that it is easy to forget that the need to defend free speech is not limited to the past, but is a constant battle that must be fought in all fronts.
"We no longer need living examples of tyranny."
This is really where I think it all comes down to, if we were to accept this as true, then tyranny will go unchecked, because as our society evolves, so will tyranny. It will not come in the form of a repressive government, but in the form of a repressive movement, another quote that I think is applicable to this point:
“In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the People." (Canton, OH, Anti-War Speech, June 16, 1918)”
― Eugene V. Debs, Voices of a People's History of the United States
So as long as there is tyranny, there will always be a need for living examples that the people of that time can identify.
Are you suggesting we tolerate tyranny? Why overthrow a tyrannt at all?
No I am not suggesting that at all, I am saying that the answer to tyranny is not more tyranny
To give a definition:
cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.
It would be unreasonable to use our moral outrage as justification for removing WBC right to free speech. To do this would mean that we force them to conform to the standard of behavior that the majority deems to be appropriate, when they are not actively causing physical harm or infringing upon the rights of others.
We have established the slippery slope involved in denying WBC the right to free expression. You made a comment that as long as there is tyranny there would need to be living examples . If there are no living examples of tyrants then there is no tyranny. Why is there a need for tyranny? At one point can you say we have learned our lessons? 1945? 9-11-2001?
ok so let me clarify my meaning, I can see how you got this :
You made a comment that as long as there is tyranny there would need to be living examples .
But that is not what I meant. What I meant was, that since tyranny will always exist, in one form or another, that we cannot limit our examples to history, because tyranny itself is not limited to history. In a perfect world, WBC would not act in the way that they do. But since it is because they do exist, and behaive in they way that they do, we cannot allow ourselves to actively censor them, because we then become tyrants in our own way. We have to be better than them, and use methods in line with upholding the principle of free expression to combat them. An example I gave earlier was to combat their speech with speech of our own. When they protest, we counter protest, and show through our actions that we do not support them. This way, no one has had their rights infringed upon, but they are drowned out by overwhelming opposition. Use speech to combat speech.
I have not suggested we behave badly. I have suggested the world will be a better place without WBC or Nazis. You were the one who refered to WBC as patriotic and a necessity.
I said that they force us to ask ourselves a nessacary question. I do not remember saying that they are a necessity. If you can show me where I said this I would appreaciate it. I am on my phone and digging through all the comments to find this is a pain.
AlphaLogica - "Putting that false equivalence aside"
LOL, again? A claim of false equivalence without an equivalence!
" Saying we need assholes like them around to appreciate our freedoms IS LIKE(is equivalent too) saying we need a Nazi Holocaust to appreciate tolerance and peace. "
Like:
having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to.
synonyms:comparable, like, corresponding, homogeneous, EQUIVALENT , analogous.
Now since you only seem to want to comment just to be combative, and cannot leave well enough alone. Maybe just not comment at all. Just because you cannot grasp what a false equivalence is. I have shown you that like is synonymous with equivalent, using a thesaurus...but you refuse to acknowledge that. So again, do not comment on this thread if you cannot provide something substantial.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.
To say that WBC is equivalent to the Nazi holocaust, is a false equivalence.
Pages