US: Fundamentalist Protest Is Protected
In a contentious free speech case, the nation’s highest court has ruled that the right of a fundamentalist church group to protest at military funerals is protected by the First Amendment free speech clause of the constitution when the protest takes place in public and addresses issues of public concern.
In an eight to one decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Westboro Baptist Church - that has become infamous for its homophobic demonstrations - contending that military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are a sign that God is punishing the country for its tolerance of homosexuality.
'While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight - the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy - are matters of public import,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion.
The court’s decision ended a hearing on the case of Snyder v. Phelps, the latest in a line of court rulings that protect free speech regardless of how hurtful it may be. Albert Snyder, the father of a Marine, sued the pastor of the Westboro church, Fred Phelps, for the emotional distress Snyder suffered when the church protested at his son’s funeral.
Though a lower court initially awarded Snyder 11 million dollars at a trial, later reduced by a judge to 5 million, a federal appeals court in Virginia threw out the ruling. The case then continued to the Supreme Court, with Snyder’s position supported by 48 states, 42 U.S. senators, and veterans groups.
But Roberts, who said the frequency of the church’s protest and its wide- ranging targets - which have included Catholics, Jews and many other groups - shows that though the attack affected Snyder, it was not aimed at him personally.
'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,' Roberts wrote. 'On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.'
Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, told IPS that, 'this new case is very much in a pattern with the idea where the court is saying that First Amendment protection for political speech is so important that we will weaken rights for individuals who are grieving and mourning terrible, terrible loss.'
Similar free speech cases decided by the current justices include the striking down of a federal ban on videos showing graphic violence against animals, and the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case - which ruled that it would be limiting political speech to ban corporate actors from funding or commenting on elections.
Scheer says the history of these decisions goes even further back, in cases such as 1964’s New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, where the Supreme Court ruled that actual malice must occur before defamation or libel in the press can be removed or censored.
The case also highlights 'a key difference between American conceptions of freedom of speech and that of most other countries,' said Scheer, whose group filed a friend of the court brief in the Westboro Baptist Church case. 'What it reaffirmed was that in America safeguarding of free speech, particularly about political matters of matters of public concern, is so great that in order to insure it and force it, we will protect even disgusting speech.'
'In most other democracies, hate speech is not protected by the legal guarantees for freedom of expression,' Scheer continued, noting the case of the fashion designer John Galliano in France, who is being prosecuted by the French government for anti-Semitic remarks.
Scheer believes that allowing speech that may be hurtful to protect the right to free speech is an essential trade-off.
'The First Amendment is never tested unless the speech involved is unpopular,' he said, 'but we also will hopefully stimulate louder voices and more articulate voices of people who think those ideas are wrong.'
© Inter Press Service (2011) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service