Hate Speech protected by the 1st Amendment in the United States

[Belinda]

Uhhhh, if you had a family member who was killed in a war who just so happened to be homosexual, I highly doubt your stance on this would be that when they come picketing his or her funeral claiming that he or she died because God punished him or her for being gay. 8((

Exactly, they are such a degrading hate group, that should have no rights to be able to express hate speech. How are they even a church again? What they do is horrible.

From what I understand, anti-hate laws have to be connected to another crime in order to be constitutional. In other words, if someone where to assault a homosexuality because of his sexual orientation, that would justify a sentence enhancement.

Misspelling there, just pointing it out.

 

[Serperior]

It's so funny... I mean, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" that Live Wire mentioned a few posts back, yet WBC is doing this to hurt a certain group of people. Whatever floats in their boat, then, because y'know, ~1st amendment~. And if they were silenced, people would whine about "freedom of speech".

Humans, how do they work?

 

[Exar Ketchem]

The reason we protect this speech, is because it ensures that our freedom of speech is also protected.

 

[Netto Azure]

As I said somewhere else. I'd promote having States pass relatively stringent "Time-Place-Manner" legislation when it comes to such private things as funerals as long as its "content neutral."

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Does intentional infliction of emotional distress mean anything at this level? -- Oh wait, it doesn't. I don't really understand why this went to the supreme court. The way I see it, if this was any other court out there, they'd have ruled against Westboro, and I think this is just going to increase their desire to enlighten the world of all the evils in it because now they know they can get away with causing emotional pain and adversities to people. The supreme court's only purpose is determining if something is unconstitutional or not. :/

This seems to be saying "It's okay to bully! You have the right to say anything you want with the first amendment, even if it's at the cost of someone else's happiness."

Westboro was 1,000 feet away from the funeral and the father didn't even know what they were saying until he saw it on television later. Intentionally inflicting emotional distress isn't an exception the 1st Amendment. The sole four exceptions are: 1) Obscenity, 2) Fighting words, 3) Subversive speech, and 4) Defamation.

You're right, the interpreting the Constitution is what the Supreme Court does. Now if the church members had went up to this man's face or went close to the funeral in order to specifically harass them as a captive audience, the ruling might have been different.

I think the exceptions usually include grievances such as if the WBC's protest also cause the widow to take drugs thereafter. Something to that effect anyway. If it were to occur.

However, hate speech to this extent is essentially senseless and needless. I realise Americans enjoy freedom of speech (except Wikileaks it seems), but you'd think a line would be drawn. The only reason they're still around is because they get the attention they want, plus they sue when they feel their rights have been violated...

At least I can be comforted in the fact that they're are all senile, unhealthy people and stupid, to go on a vendetta like that is ridiculous.

The problem is who gets to draw the lines and where are the lines drawn? That threatens the 1st Amendment with abuse that the Court didn't want to happen.

Which is ironic, because the very Constitution they're citing this from also mentions "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are inalienable rights, meaning the government cannot take them away, yet that's what this ruling effectively did. This is why I have literally no faith in the Roberts Court.

That's not in the Constitution. That's in the Declaration of Independence. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

 

[Esper]

This seems to be saying "It's okay to bully! You have the right to say anything you want with the first amendment, even if it's at the cost of someone else's happiness."

What the court did was say that it's not okay to bully... unless the people you're bullying are somehow involved in some kind of national debate, like gays in the military. If the Westboro church had done what they did at the funeral of someone who wasn't gay then the court would probably have said something different since being Jewish or Black or something else isn't part of a "national debate" which seems to be why the court thought it was okay to side with the church. So, in a sense, as long as there are people in this country who don't like gays and keep talking about their hatred in the media it's part of the public discourse and it'll all be okay. :|

Westboro was 1,000 feet away from the funeral and the father didn't even know what they were saying until he saw it on television later. Intentionally inflicting emotional distress isn't an exception the 1st Amendment. The sole four exceptions are: 1) Obscenity, 2) Fighting words, 3) Subversive speech, and 4) Defamation.

Which one of those 4 covers the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater idea? Putting people in danger is certainly an exception as well.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Which one of those 4 covers the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater idea? Putting people in danger is certainly an exception as well.

That is covered under Subversive Speech. Subversive speech is also commonly know as Dangerous Speech. That exception prohibits speech that will lead to or creates a danger of creating imminent lawless action and/or imminent breach of the peace. I know that Subversive and Dangerous speech should be separated, but most academics put them both under one category.

 

[twocows]

What the court did was say that it's not okay to bully... unless the people you're bullying are somehow involved in some kind of national debate, like gays in the military. If the Westboro church had done what they did at the funeral of someone who wasn't gay then the court would probably have said something different since being Jewish or Black or something else isn't part of a "national debate" which seems to be why the court thought it was okay to side with the church. So, in a sense, as long as there are people in this country who don't like gays and keep talking about their hatred in the media it's part of the public discourse and it'll all be okay. :|

At what point is it no longer part significant? There are still people who protest racial integration, but they are an insignificant minority. At what point do we draw the line, though?

Personally, I don't think there is or should be a line, past the limits we already have set. People ought to and do have the right to speak their minds, no matter how damaged they are. Placing limits on speech because we disagree with it sets a dangerous precedent. If limits were placed on speech just because most people find it offensive or disagreeable, eventually nobody would be allowed to say anything that differed from the majority opinion.

 

[Queen of Darkness]

I think we should not put a line on it either as all kinds of speech for advancement or for hate should be protected even if hate speech isn't the best kind of free speech...

 

[aruchan]

I think we should not put a line on it either as all kinds of speech for advancement or for hate should be protected even if hate speech isn't the best kind of free speech...

I have to agree with you. While these people may be monsters, free speech is an asset that needs to always be protected. In Europe you have these strict blasphemy laws, which, while making it illegal to speak ill about other races or religions in an offensive way. As such, it is better to live with the occasional but horrible weirdos that crop up and keep speech free and legal.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

We should all remember that the Constitutions gives us Americans the right to free speech. It does not give us the right not to be offended. It's a tough world out there, and you're going to come across ideas that you find offensive frequently in your life. People who can't accept that are weak, imo. Just remember that the same 1st Amendment that protected these lunatics also protects your right to say vile things about people who spread hate and bigotry.

 

[Melody]

That's pretty much the size of it. If we were allowed to silence people who say unpopular things, we'd then be allowed to be silenced when we say unpopular things.

Pretty much standard "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" material really.

But in all honesty, I really do believe that the things that WBC borders on the very fringes of protected speech, and I pray to the almighty that they cross that line and get the justice they deserve before any damage is done, if He himself has no designs to deal with them in His own way.

 

[I Laugh at your Misfortune!]

I have to agree with you. While these people may be monsters, free speech is an asset that needs to always be protected. In Europe you have these strict blasphemy laws, which, while making it illegal to speak ill about other races or religions in an offensive way. As such, it is better to live with the occasional but horrible weirdos that crop up and keep speech free and legal.

Those laws aren't so much blasphemy as they are anti-discrimination. I'll admit to being largely ignorant of the american legal system, but from what I see on messageboards, there seems to be a strong emphasis on free speech trumping pretty much anything else. For comparison to the UK's free speech laws:

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104844-Man-Goes-to-Jail-for-Being-an-Internet-Troll

Obviously, there are differences in that this man was just trolling, as opposed to the WBBC which was putting forwards a genuinely held belief. I definitely don't think that what the WBBC does is morally acceptable, but they do seem to be protected under constitutional law. English law, well, apparently not, and I know a lot of people can put forwards the slippery slope argument as to why free speech needs so much freedom. But I still don't see why we have to go down the slope. Whether you're talking about the UK or the USA, our civilisation should be sensible enough to plant its feet at one point on the slope and say "We're fine here. Not going up, not going down."

 

[aruchan]

Those laws aren't so much blasphemy as they are anti-discrimination. I'll admit to being largely ignorant of the american legal system, but from what I see on messageboards, there seems to be a strong emphasis on free speech trumping pretty much anything else. For comparison to the UK's free speech laws:

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104844-Man-Goes-to-Jail-for-Being-an-Internet-Troll

Obviously, there are differences in that this man was just trolling, as opposed to the WBBC which was putting forwards a genuinely held belief. I definitely don't think that what the WBBC does is morally acceptable, but they do seem to be protected under constitutional law. English law, well, apparently not, and I know a lot of people can put forwards the slippery slope argument as to why free speech needs so much freedom. But I still don't see why we have to go down the slope. Whether you're talking about the UK or the USA, our civilisation should be sensible enough to plant its feet at one point on the slope and say "We're fine here. Not going up, not going down."

Unlike the English legal system, America's constitution and Bill of Rights were based on the experiences we had endured during the colonial times. The freedom of speech was added due to the importance of dissemination and public speaking during the Revolution, most notably Thomas Paine's Common Sense. In addition, morally acceptable is an arbitrary term. The slippery slope is a justified argument in this case because government have been known to suppress criticism. America has done this most notably with the Sedition Acts during World War I, which stated that it was illegal to speak ill of the country's operations and army during the war.

People don't ever say, "We're fine here." People like to push the envelope, and that's sometimes perfectly fine. Homosexuality was illegal in the US until the Stonewall Riots and the Gay Rights movement; likewise, the Civil Rights Act was only passed after years of civil rights protests. Which by law were illegal.

So despite the despicable nature of these people, the freedom of speech is invaluable. I do think, however, that they should not be allowed to protest at funerals. That's just disrespectful.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

I have to agree with you. While these people may be monsters, free speech is an asset that needs to always be protected. In Europe you have these strict blasphemy laws, which, while making it illegal to speak ill about other races or religions in an offensive way. As such, it is better to live with the occasional but horrible weirdos that crop up and keep speech free and legal.

More anti-discrimination than blasphemy, but whatever. Anyway, I don't see your argument here; you pointed out that we have laws against discrimination and then say therefore the US should not?
What are saying these laws do that is inherently bad? You really gave no reason to backup your idea that it is better to tolerate-the-intolerant as it were.

Anyway, I think freedom of speech is all well and good, but a line must be drawn somewhere. For example, I think it's fine to speak up against the government obviously, but to, say, perform a public demonstration explicitly discriminating a group of people should be illegal. Here we call it here "inciting [religious/etc] hatred".

 

[Steven]

Really, it's not free speech that is the issue. It's slander. Which is what they're doing. And yes, you can slander a dead person's name

 

[Mario The World Champion]

The only thing we're doing is giving the Westboro Church time in the spotlight. Time they don't deserve because of their crap. They are nothing but fame seekers who want to spread their "message" while disrespecting the men and women who gave their lives so those idiots can do this crap. Some people think we should review the first amendment and redefine what is and isn't protected. That in itself is like walking a fine line.

CNN interviewed a war veteran and he made a good point. With a lot of soldiers returning home and suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the Westboro jerks will picket another soldier's funeral and a soldier with PTSD will pull out a gun and there will be blood shed.

If that happens, I for one will not shed a tear for any of those 71 pricks. Maybe the phrase, what goes around, comes around, will come into play.

 

[Feign]

Thing is though, they don't love their children... They bring their children to the picket, and in the event that their child gets killed or hurt by someone who is pissed off by the WBC, they believe it was God's will.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Really, it's not free speech that is the issue. It's slander. Which is what they're doing. And yes, you can slander a dead person's name

I'm having a hard time seeing how this is slander. Slander is when someone makes false statements that damage a person's reputation.

 

[Steven]

I'm having a hard time seeing how this is slander. Slander is when someone makes false statements that damage a person's reputation.

How can screaming, "HE DIED BECAUSE HE'S A ******" and "GOD HATES HIM" be anything other than slander?

Have you ever seen video of their protests? Have you actually heard what they said?