The
first amendment of the United States constitution protects one’s rights to
peacefully assemble and freedom of speech. With that, US citizens have the right to take
vocal stances for or against issues- ranging from the mundane to controversial-
via public avenues. The first amendment is one the founding staples of the
United States, many citing it as one of the most significant asset to living in
the United States.
The
Westboro Baptist Church is an organization that opposes any form- whether it be
another organization, music, military etc. - that “tolerates” or promotes
homosexuality. The WBC are known (and heavily critiqued) for their relatively
radical tactics taken in spreading the organizations message. Such tactics
include protesting funerals of US soldiers with signs that contain eye-grabbing
messages such as “God hates fags,” “America is going to hell,” and “Thank God
for dead soldiers.” The name of the organization’s website is GodHatesFags.com.
In
2011, Albert Snyder filed a lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church after
the organization protested Snyder’s son’s funeral. His son- Matthew Snyder- was
a member of the US marines. Albert
Snyder sued the WBC on claims that they inflicted emotional distress. Although
court officials sympathized with Snyder, the lawsuit resulted in a 8-1 ruling
for the WBC; over the protection for the organizations right to freedom of
speech. Being as how the Westboro Baptist Church protested within a 1,000 feet
from the actual funeral and did not cause any physical harm to the mourners,
the court deemed their demonstration as a peaceful assembly protected by the
first amendment. Although Matthew Snyder
was not a homosexual, the WBC believes that God is punishing America in killing
US soldiers for the country’s progressing tolerance and acceptance of
homosexuals.
Although
the first amendment gives people the right to freedom of speech, there are
(often blurred) boundaries. For example, if what’s being said is unequivocally a
false statement, it can fall under slander. In terms of intellectual property,
one can copyright infringement can have an effect on whether not someone’s
freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment. In the case of the
Westboro Baptist Church, many have argued that public protest that contains
anti-gay signs can fall under a hate crime. Some would even say that the
demonstrations can be considered as “fighting words.” Although one does not necessarily
agree with either of those claims, it is clear that these protests are meant to
provoke shock and are aimed to spread intolerance.
When I
read stories such as this, it makes me question whether or not alternations
should be made towards the constitution. On one side, the amount of emotional/psychological
damages that the actions of the WBC leave on families of the victims- along
with society as a whole- are repulsive and having stronger regulations on what
they can and can’t do can be beneficial in promoting tolerance. That said, one
recognizes that doing so would breach their freedom of speech. As tasteless as
their message may be, taking away their rights would be almost as unethical as
their organization. Would tweaking the constitution result in making modern society
a better place or would it mean that arbitrary rules being set for particularity
group of people (aka, discrimination)?
