Loading ...After three University of Wisconsin students died in a house fire earlier this month, members of the Westboro Baptist Church headed to the University to stage a protest, claiming that the death of the three students was divine retribution for America not criminalizing homosexuality. A large counter-protest was staged, far outnumbering the WBC protesters, a video of which can be found here on YouTube.
While the WBC is undoubtedly in the wrong for their hateful views, the counter-protest seems to be, on the large part, nothing more than attempt to meet hate with more hate. A more solemn counter-protest that stood in support of the victims of the fire would have been far more effective in getting across the message, as what happened came across more like a “you’re not welcome here, and we are going to chase you away” than anything else. Which was probably the intent, anyways.
Which leads me to my main point - many people seem to have a very hard time dealing with the Westboro Baptist Church. They are seen as an embarrassment by many Christians, who are in turn eager to distance themselves in any way possible. A recent court case ruled that the Church had to pay 11 million dollars to the family of a fallen soldier whose funeral they protested, and many hailed the decision as them getting what they had coming to them. But did they really deserve to have their first amendment right to free speech taken away from them, because what they say is incredibly offensive to a lot of people?
The attitude is perhaps understandable, but it is not acceptable. The WBC has a right to free speech, just as these counter-protesters have a right to free speech. You have a right not only to say what people consider to be good things, but bad things as well. You don’t have to like what people say, but that doesn’t mean they can’t say it. When you start to lose sight of that, you are headed down a dangerous path.
(Photo credit to rseanes.)
6 responses so far ↓
1 working poor // Apr 14, 2008 at 7:03 am
Yes freedom of speech is very important. A funeral though is a private matter and not a good place for a protest.
My Dad was a war vet and I think I would have been very deeply hurt and offended if war protesters had gone to his funeral.
I believe the WBC ought to be able to take out an ad, start a website, or write a book or any other form of reaching the world with their views. But, I think it was truly heartless of them to go to a funeral and do what they did and they ought not be able to converge on a private family gathering they way that they did. I think they got what they deserved…
2 Chester Lunt // Apr 14, 2008 at 7:24 am
It really depends whether their protest is outside a funeral, or literally involves entering a funeral. People can’t just barge into a funeral that is going on uninvited, and that would be a crime - but if they are protesting outside of it, that is simply an excercise in free speech. Is it heartless? Yes, but it is also protected by the first amendment.
3 Poor John // Apr 17, 2008 at 5:52 am
But such things shouldn’t even happen outside of a funeral. It just doesn’t make much sense, or common sense, to disrupt something that is meant to be a peaceful and solemn event. You can’t cry out “fire!” in a crowded theatre, because people will react, and this is basically the same thing, which the first amendment doesn’t protect.
4 Chester Lunt // Apr 17, 2008 at 7:23 am
I agree that they shouldn’t have done it, but the whole idea that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater is actually a misconception. The phrase came about in a court ruling which declared it illegal to distribute anti-draft pamphlets during World War One, and was actually that you cannot “falsely shout fire,” as, well, if there really was a fire you wouldn’t be wrong to say it. But the ruling itself has sense been overturned, and now the criteria is that speech should not incite “imminent lawless action,” which this does not - however inflammatory it may be.
5 Poor John // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:06 pm
You make a strong case there, Mr. Lunt, but I’d like to disagree with you there. The WBC is inciting “imminent lawless action”, by pushing everyone’s buttons. Now, if I saw a WBC protest, I’d walk the other way, but if someone who was abit more emotional saw it, well, I’d reckon that it’d start some “imminent lawless action”. It’s just a powder keg waiting to explode, so I’d reckon that there should be some law against protesting at someone’s funeral, or other events that it’s uncalled for.
6 Chester Lunt // Apr 17, 2008 at 4:16 pm
That creates an issue, though, of the crowd being able to silence people who want to protest. If they view it as offensive or unacceptable enough, the threat of them becoming unruly could prevent people from being heard even outside of a funeral. It’s one thing if the speakers are calling for people to riot, but that isn’t quite what happened.
Leave a Comment