Freedom of ?

62

By kateperez

Supreme Court of the United States

Who gets to choose?

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Westboro Baptist Church has the right to protest military funerals under the first amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States.

Many people do not agree with the ruling based on the hateful content of the church's signs and rhetoric shouted at the mourning families and loved ones.  The misunderstanding is that the church is directing their hateful speech at the dead service man, but the protests are carefully orchestrated so as to not target a single private person.  The signs are generic, speaking about how the USA supports gays, and that the military, being a part of the government, therefore also supports gays.  Their church, although radical, has every right to protest.  It does not seem to occur to those who do not agree with the Supreme Court's ruling that with the permission of WBC to protest the funerals, they have also given others the right to protest as well.  They can receive their own permits to assemble and stand in front of the WBC protesters.  They can sing patriotic songs and wave flags large enough to block the hateful signs of the church.  

If WBC is stifled, then the Tea Parties will be shut down.  Radio and television programs that have opinionated content will be shut down.  Those people who may have an opinion that differs from a boss, a friend, a spouse, or the government can be put away in a jail someplace.  What would happen if we could not have political campaign rallies or school plays?  Any assembly could be outlawed, including the three friends who meet up for lunch every Wednesday at their favorite pizza place.

Once this offensive and hateful speech is stifled by the United States government it will open to door to more restrictions on the freedoms of all Americans.  There is discussion that the right to bear arms is not truly provided by the second amendment of the Bill of Rights.  What is considered a militia?  When would it not be necessary, in these violent times, for a man or woman to not have the opportunity to fully protect their own family?  After all, states are threatening to remove police due to financial difficulties.  They are considering reducing the forces that protect citizens, and if these same citizens are stripped of their right to have a gun then only the criminals will have guns.

Freedom of religion anyone?  If one considers that WBC is a church, they have the right to worship in any way that seems appropriate to the parish members.  Most of the world does not agree with their methods but they are not shooting anyone and are not otherwise causing physical harm or death to any members of the country they protest in.  If the Supreme Court begins telling people that offensive speech is not allowed, next comes religion.  What if the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President (the 3 equal branches of the government) decide to choose a religion for the masses?  What if it is not your religion?  What if they decide that Wicca will be the preferred religion, or radical Islam?  We've lost our guns and our rights to speak out so anything can happen and none of us would be able to protest or stop the madness. 

When considering the deplorable behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church, they also have to consider the deplorable behavior of those they agree with.  Do you agree with the unions, or the Tea Party?  Do you agree that you have the right?  Well, when you think about your own potentially radical behavior, thank the Supreme Court for deciding that you have the right to behave that way.


Comments

junko Level 5 Commenter 14 months ago

This is another way to look at the court's decision.

wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com Level 7 Commenter 14 months ago

Free speech, also gives us the right to be a jerk. If we made it illegal to act like a jerk we'd have to incarcerate half the population. There are limits to what the law can prohibit and enforce. The politically correct crowd think they can use the courts to shape society into their own image. They think its the governments job to develop members of society to evolve into greater heights of enlightenment.

kateperez profile image

kateperez Hub Author 14 months ago

wba108:

I agree with you. The 1st amendment is actually to protect jerks. After all, who would be likely to complain when someone tells them "hello" or "isn't it a beautiful day?"

It is the offensive speech that is protected. So, even those we disagree with have the right to speak what they will.

If we take away the right to offensive speech of others, we take away the right to offensive speech coming from our own mouths.

James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins Level 8 Commenter 12 months ago

I did not agree with the decision. I do agree that this group of hateful people has a right to free speech but I would have thought that mourning parents have a superior right to a private funeral. The Court obviously does not agree with me.

I do appreciate your thought provoking article. It is good.

kateperez profile image

kateperez Hub Author 12 months ago

James,

The funeral is private. They do not cross the boundaries of the cemetery, they stand on public streets to protest. A cemetery is private property and the WBC cannot protest on the grounds.

Plus, maybe they're like witches and demons, and cannot set food on consecrated ground or else they'd burn up? Just a thought there! :)

Thank you for your comments. Very much appreciated.

kate

Submit a Comment
Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.



    • No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked
    • Comments are not for promoting your Hubs or other sites

    Please wait working