The Westboro Baptist Church is a small Kansas-based
homophobic, anti-Semitic hate group that stages protests across the country.
WBC protests at Jewish institutions and believes Catholic, Protestant and other
Christian denominations are heretical. It also protests at funerals of people
who die in accidental situations, as well as at funerals of soldiers killed in
Iraq and Afghanistan. They believe God hates athletes, celebrities, gays, and
any person who preaches “false” information. Furthermore, they believe deaths
and natural disasters are God’s way of punishing the United States for
tolerating gay people. WBC interprets the Bible in a strict way, saying
that God is hateful and that only the select few are loved by Him. The members
of WBC believe that America is a “doomed” country.
.jpg)
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/westboro(2).jpg
The question is: should this type of freedom of expression be
allowed? It is not clear what Mill’s opinion would be on this issue. Mill
states that the worst type of offense in regards to free speech is “to
stigmatize those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men” (Mill,On Liberty, Ch. 2 Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion). Westboro
continually commits this offense by believing that that almost all Americans
and American institutions are “sinful.” On the other hand, the majority of Americans
believe WBC members are bad and immoral, so there is stigmatization on both
sides. Mill believes that “[i]f all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and
only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more
justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be
justified in silencing mankind.” In this
situation WBC is the minority with the contrary opinion, and thus must be
allowed to state its opinions. Furthermore, Mill states that people should “never
impose [their ideas] upon others unless they are quite sure of being rights.”
Westboro is very confident that its opinions are correct, so perhaps Mill would
deem it acceptable for WBC to picket funerals and other events.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/aru5013/blogs/Uhler/rainbow11255715861.jpg
WBC’s strong message that “God hates fags” is very demeaning
and causes emotional harm to many people, gay and straight, nationwide. One
example of many the people affected by Westboro’s picketing is Albert Snyder,
the father of a marine whose funeral was picketed at by WBC in 2006. Snyder
sued Westboro, and although he did not win the case, he received $5 million in
damages for emotional stress. It is clear that Westboro’s tactics harm people,
however it is difficult to decide what Mill would say about this issue because
he believes that all free speech is beneficial to society. Perhaps he would
reprimand Westboro, but would still believe they should be allowed to express
their opinions.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Snapz-Pro-XScreenSnapz0223.jpg
This situation becomes complicated when the First Amendment
of the Constitution is brought into the picture. The First Amendment states “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of
grievances.” The Supreme Court deemed it constitutional for Westboro to picket
at a military funeral, stating “we cannot react to that pain (caused by the
protests) by punishing the speaker.” However restrictions have been put on
Westboro’s picketing: they must be 300 feet away and they can’t protest two
hours before or after a service is held.
In my opinion, Westboro has every right to believe what they
believe. However, I do not think they should be able to cause harm to other
citizens through picketing at funerals. Every person is entitled to their
opinions, but how people are allowed to express them should be restricted in
some instances. Instead of picketing, Westboro could worship in private without
harming others. America is home to a wide range of opinions, and as essential
as this can be to our country, it can cause controversy such as the Westboro
Baptist Church.
Additional sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/02/supreme-court-decision-westboro-baptist-church-challenges/
This post reveals an important aspect of both Mill's theories and the First Amendment. I agree with you in that the WBC should be able to believe whatever they want and be able to practice their believes as they please. This right is clearly spelled out by the laws of the United States. Even though their believes may be seen as twisted and unorthodox by the majority of the nation, they are still granted their right to religion. In this case, however, I find a huge flaw in the First Amendment. I am not against freedom of speech, but I do feel it overlooks some instances which should not be allowed. Such as in this, protesting a funeral should never have happened. However, I do understand the argument that "If this action of freedom of speech was denied, then the government could just as easily take away other instances of free speech...". I feel denying the WBC's right to speech may awaken anti-communist attitudes in citizens and that is why nothing can be done. However, what the WBC did was wrong. Protesting at a funeral is a horrifyingly disrespectful act in any culture. They should not be allowed to do this. Unfortunately, the vague First Amendment allows atrocities like this to happen. The First Amendment is a defining trait of the U.S. It can not be removed, but this in some cases does cause suffering. Mill does state that freedom of speech is a necessary part of the world. However, I think in such an extreme case as this, he would except the censorship of this group's right to free speech.
ReplyDeleteLinda,
ReplyDeleteThis was a very compelling post. I thought you brought up very interesting arguments about both Mill's theories as well as the First Amendment. However, personally although I agree that the Westboro Baptist Church has every right to believe whatever they wish to believe, I don't agree with the Supreme Court decision to rule in their favor. Freedom of speech is an extremely guarded right, especially in this day and age, yet allowing protesters at a funeral with signs as derogatory and disrespectful as the ones in the pictures, I believe is overstepping many boundaries. Just as we can't scream fire in a crowded theater when there is not in fact a fire due to the danger it can cause everyone, the WBC protests at a funeral should also be viewed in a negative light as well. The first amendment has been taken away from individuals in the past in particular in the Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States. This unjust ruling was the precedent for years to follow yet it was deemed constitutional. If the Supreme Court has the ability to take away the first amendment in certain situations and not in others such as the WBC protests, I don't believe that this is just. Although I understand the ramifications of denying the protesters the right to protest outside the funeral, and that the Supreme Court has to walk a very fine line, I still do not believe that John Stuart Mill would have permitted freedom of speech in this particular instance.
Overall this was a riveting post and it was very well written!
Malini
Linda,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I posted a similar blog on Holocaust deniers and the role of Mill's free speech. Mill has great ideas and means well, but when things are blatantly destructive there should be no place for it in society. As for funerals, they should be private, regardless of whether or not the individual was a soldier. The example that you give of Albert Snyder is a good one. Because it was a funeral, the family should have had the option to deny access to anyone they deemed unnecessary. WBC would have been one of these. Overall, great thoughts and ideas. So long as the type of speech is solely destructive, their shouldn't be a place for it in our society.
Linda,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post, while in lecture, I thought of WBC as well when learning about Mill. I personally think the protesting the WBC does is wildly inappropriate and disrespectful. However, you bring up some interesting points that illustrate why Mill might condone their behavior. The most compelling is that the people of the Westboro Baptist Church truly believe that they are doing what is right. I would hope that no one would cause that much more pain to families who are already grieving, unless they really believed their actions were justified.
Like others have commented, the first amendment has defined our country as a place of many freedoms. However, as always there are flaws and exceptions many think should be made. I don't believe the WBC should be able to say this kind of hateful speech, but making an exception and silencing only one groups speech would probably cause even more issues. While they cannot be legally silenced, I still agree with Ryan's comment above that there is no place for their destructive speech in our society.
Linda
ReplyDeleteI too thought about Westboro Baptist Church when we talked about Mill in lecture. I dont think it is unreasonable to say that the majority of America does disagree with the actions of Westboro Baptist Church, and furthermore, if asked if they should be allowed to conduct such atrocities in light of the first amendment, I truly believe that most of society would say no. This being said, I think that the real problem here is in the legislation. Sure, we can take specific instances such as picketing a soldiers funeral, and say that it shouldn't be allowed, but how do we legislate this? The problem with the supreme court, (and any other court for that matter) is the precedence. Even if the judge would have been in favor of ruling WBC's acts unconstitutional, he can't in fear of the precedence it might set for the future.
In John Stuart Mill's case, I am left to wonder whether or not he would have granted Westboro Baptist Church freedom of speech in this case. I tend to think that he wouldn't. What they are doing is beyond free speech; it is hurtful, and full of hatred, and there is no place for their destructive ignorance in society.
Great post Linda. I was gravitated to your post because I am well aware of Westboro Baptist Church and their exploits. I have personal experience with the WBC: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/23/local/me-rent2. I am sorry I couldn't find a more informative article/video but nonetheless, members of WBC protested outside of my high school because our drama department was producing a rendition of the popular play "Rent". The play had been edited so that its suggestive content regarding HIV/AIDS, homosexuality, drug use, etc. was appropriate for high school audiences.
ReplyDeleteI remember the day they picketed in front of our school quite easily, due to the response shown from my peers. Over three hundred students arrived once 5th period was over to show their support for the school as well as observe those religious zealots who came all the way from Kansas to Southern California to protest in front of a high school with signs like "God Hates Fags" and "Obama is the Antichrist." I was proud of the respectful response that my fellow students and I exhibited that day in the face of such blatant hatred and ignorance.
That's not to say that my school didn't have controversy outside of this: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=6719503. As a result of those ACLU lawsuits, our school was required to provide mandatory educational seminars on anti-discrimination. The seminars provided intese first hand anecdotal information from panel members from diverse lifestyles: drug addicts, LGBTs, people living with HIV, different religions, and on. I learned much from those seminars as many of the panel members shared very intimate and intense details about the social struggles they face with lives they lead.