How wrong can we as a nation be when it comes to understanding our constitutional rights? When is an individual's right to be wrong more important than the right of another individual to be protected from being wronged by that individual? Those are questions that have been rolling around in my mind all day.
Today is the day that arguments are being heard before the Supreme Court concerning the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas and their protests against American servicemen during their funerals.
The particular case before the court revolves around one individual in particular. A Marine lance corporal whose funeral was protested by the members of Westboro Baptist church back in 2008. The father of the dead marine sued the pastor and the church and the case has now arrived before the supreme Court, having been reviewed by the appellate courts who sided with Westboro.
Today as I read reports and listened to the radio, I was first struck by the commentary of Glen Beck during his daily radio program as it concerned the issue of freedom of speech and the case being heard by the court today concerning Westboro Baptist church.
Here is a man (Glenn Beck, a nationally recognized pundit) who regularly sides with patriotism and the American military and conservativism, yet he was readily straying to the sidelines of liberal journalism in his support for the supposed rights of Westboro Baptist and their version of supposed protected speech today.
Beck and his sidekicks on his radio program today, lamented and wailed against the actions of the Westboro militant anarchist Christians and their history of shameful actions and protests, but every time Beck would finish his condemnations of their actions, he immediately retreated to the liberal island of freedom of speech and began blathering on about "if they can silence Wesboro Baptist? They can silence us!"
And there in lies the supposition of supposed fundamental argument as it concerns this case specifically and and freedom of speech in general. The belief that this case is somehow a constitutional issue at all is wrong headed, much less that is could provide the means to silence the media.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court ultimately rules in this case, the issue before the court is not and should never have been brought and rested upon the right to freedom of speech.
The rightful issue is, "do Americans have a right to protest and harass individuals?" Specifically, does anyone have a right to protest any individuals who are not public figures, and are not affiliated with the government in any fashion?
For those confused, a short primer on constitutional law is in order. It has long been considered a standing principle of understanding, that the Bill of Rights was written both in terms of the issues of importance being enumerated, but also from the perspective that the common man would read and easily understand the rights being enumerated to the individual by the bill of rights.
Therefore, the first amendment is the most important of our rights in the standing order of the bill of rights, because it was committed to paper first and foremost. The first amendment covers four specific rights and freedoms.
The first being freedom (of) religion.
The second being...protection from the abridging of freedom of speech.
The third being protection from the abridging of the freedom of the press.
And the last providing the people the right to peaceably assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances.
On the surface, three of the four elements of right mentioned in the first amendment are theoretically at play in the Westboro Baptist case. Therefore, let's examine those elements individually.
First let's address the right to freedom of religion.
Do the members of Westboro Baptist have a right to engage in the pursuit and practice of their particular version of religion? The answer is most certainly yes. Therefore, the only question left as it applies to that aspect of this case, is whether in some fashion, that right has been abridged by anyone engaged in preventing the members of Westboro from protesting at private funerals. And the answer to that question and challenge is no. No one has abridged their right to belief or the practice of their religion.
The next element (and the most important IMO) is whether the members of Westboro Baptist (as individuals or as a group) have a constitutionally protected right to protest at the private funeral services of deceased members of the American military. And the most important consideration in that deliberation of judgment rest squarely with how that alleged belief of right by the Westboro members squares with the first amendment. Both in it's wording and in it's intent.
The amendment is specific. It provides for the protection of those engaged (only) in activities of speech directed specifically at their government. There is no extrapolation of interpretation to be made at arriving at that determination that provides for libel or slander against an individual.
The first amendment is simply stated as are the directed intents of the rights being enumerated in the first amendment.
And there in lies the problem. Not only as it concerns this particular case, but also as it concerns all the cases that have preceded this case. And most certainly as it will concern those cases to follow the ruling in this case.
The reverend Phelps and his children and in laws have no right to protest against private individuals and any reasonable thinking American or justice of the Supreme Court reviewing this case knows that (or should) know that. This renegade pastor and his militant flock are more than welcome to protest and challenge the government on any level that they find accommodating to their desires and insidious idiocy, but they have no right to protest at the scene of a private funeral or burial service or ceremony involving the dead.
And no one is preventing them from seeking their presentment of grievances or redress to their government, or refusing them the right to assemble 'peaceably' to do so. What is being questioned, is their intentional infliction of mental pain and anguish on the minds and hearts of private individuals, for the sole purpose of pursuing their own political and religious agenda in the media.
Much is riding on the outcome of this case and how the court will ultimately rule. And the reading of the musings of the justices so far, is more than interesting and troubling in my opinion. From my perusing of articles and opinion pieces concerning this case today, it appears that at least a couple of the liberal justices on the court have a better grasp of what is really at issue here than the conservative justices.
Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy have indicated in their commentaries that they see a problem with protesting at private funeral services.
Meanwhile, Kennedy and Alito seem to be concerned more with the specifics of what was said on the protest signs and in the subsequent internet postings by Westboro concerning the deceased marine, were not in fact a free speech issue. And whether those references made specifically directly concerning this dead marine constitute any form of infringement of the rights of his family.
Make no mistake, if the court rules in favor of the members of the Westboro Baptist church, the flood gates to constitutional anarchy will be opened. Individuals will immediately become prime targets to be set upon and driven into the wilderness by anyone with a grudge to be aired. And we have more than a few groups and organizations in this country literally chomping at the bit to target and demonize the objects of their personal and individual hatreds.
If the court rules in favor of Westboro Baptist, there will be new avenues opened for the specific targeting of individuals under the guise of constitutionally protected freedoms and there will be hell to pay as a result. These are avenues that these justices had better consider carefully before they open a chasm that will ultimately not be reconcileable.
If the court rules in favor of Westboro Baptist and their supposed right to protest at soldiers funerals? Then in my opinion, there are no constraints left to prevent anyone else from protesting any individual regardless of cause or fault. In particular as it concerns public individuals. Specifically, as it concerns Supreme Court Justices.
Former Justice David Souter got a taste of that medicine when he sided with the government on eminent domain issues five years ago and those with means targeted his private property for seizure under the provisions that he had argued for.
And if the majority of justices of this court decide to side with the view that Westboro Baptist Church and rule that it's members have a constitutionally protected right to target the funerals of private individuals for their maligned religious protests?
Then I can see in a short period of time, where these justices will be targeted for protests and condemnations on a scale heretofore never witnessed in America. And at that point? It will be a constitutionally moot and settled point.
Former Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes said it best when he said in Schenck v. United States .....
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Congress has a right and more importantly a duty, to pass laws that protect the rights of the people and specifically the individual American citizens against the intentional harm of others. Our laws as they presently exist, do not forbid any individual from speaking their mind in public in any reasonable or acceptable manner. The laws that do limit or prevent speech in public, do so to prevent the words and deeds of any individual or individuals, from unjustly harming, slandering or infringing upon the rights of other individuals.
The members of Westboro Baptist church have the right to protest their government and it's policies and their elected officials in any form that is reasonable and does not violate the rights of other individuals. American soldiers, airmen sailors and Marines have paid for that right a million times over. But the members of Westboro Baptist do no have the right to violate and humiliate any individual or their memory while in the pursuit of their own twisted theologies.
When all is said and done. It's as simple as that. I can only pray that wisdom and justice will prevail when the supreme Court makes it's final ruling in this case. For if they fail to judge with wisdom, then the gates will have been opened to anarchy and destruction. And revolution cannot be far behind.
The reverend Phelps and his brood of family members have a right to be wrong, but they do not have the right to wrong others.
No comments:
Post a Comment