As is my wont, I'm going to write again about the case before the US Supreme Court in regards to the incendiary protests held by one wacko church at the funerals of US soldiers. The big question that cases such as this one ask is: Where does society draw the line over the issue of free speech? What kinds of speech are protected and which kinds are not?
It's well established that a person can't yell, "Movie" in a crowded firehouse...oh, I'm sorry, it's the other way around (i.e., you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater). My bad.
You can't directly incite others to kill or maim people. I can't just decide today that, because I don't like a specific neighbor, that I can go down the hill to one of South Bend's few street corners to tell people that they need to run home to get there guns and then burst into this man's house to shoot him dead in his bed.
But aside from these few limitations, in order for free speech genuinely to be free, we must defend the right of those of who say things we adamantly disagree with. I despise the hate-filled rhetoric of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, but I'm willing to defend their right to have their say. I disagree with most of the talk coming from the Tea Party movement, but I again defend their right to say most of what they have to say.
At an earlier time in my life, I publicly supported the right of David Duke and the KKK to hold a rally in the town in which I lived. This was a very unpopular stance with my leftist brethren, but I believed then, and still believe today, that it is consistent with my belief in the protection of the right of free speech.
If a person will only support speech that they agree with, how free is that?
It's well established that a person can't yell, "Movie" in a crowded firehouse...oh, I'm sorry, it's the other way around (i.e., you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater). My bad.
You can't directly incite others to kill or maim people. I can't just decide today that, because I don't like a specific neighbor, that I can go down the hill to one of South Bend's few street corners to tell people that they need to run home to get there guns and then burst into this man's house to shoot him dead in his bed.
But aside from these few limitations, in order for free speech genuinely to be free, we must defend the right of those of who say things we adamantly disagree with. I despise the hate-filled rhetoric of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, but I'm willing to defend their right to have their say. I disagree with most of the talk coming from the Tea Party movement, but I again defend their right to say most of what they have to say.
At an earlier time in my life, I publicly supported the right of David Duke and the KKK to hold a rally in the town in which I lived. This was a very unpopular stance with my leftist brethren, but I believed then, and still believe today, that it is consistent with my belief in the protection of the right of free speech.
If a person will only support speech that they agree with, how free is that?
I don't know all the specifics of this case, but it would seem to me that even if conducted publicly, a funeral is more so a personal family affair, and if somebody, especially someone not invited, started yelling obscenities directed at the deceased, or anyone, would not only be extremely disrespectful, but would also be a form of disturbing the peace, possibly even disorderly conduct, and I really don't understand why they wouldn't be arrested for doing so, or at least told to leave. It seems more about disrespect, than free speech. Although I suppose one is free to be disrespectful, but in a situation of a funeral, I just don't understand why this is even an issue. I think in the context of a funeral, any kind of protesting is extremely inappropriate, and shouldn't be allowed. But then again I don't know the whole story, am I missing something here?
ReplyDeleteLet me restate that. I think these people should have the right to protest whatever they want, but in light of it being a funeral, which is a personal family affair, a time for mourning and paying their last respects, out of respect to the deceased and their family, mean spirited protesters should not be allowed any where near the funeral. And also you would think that it should be free from any form of harassment, or disturbances, on the grounds of it being part of the overall funeral package. Funerals can cost a lot of money, and so keeping mean spirited people away from it isn't an unreasonable demand. But then again, I don't know the whole story, were the protesters not actually anywhere near the funeral?
ReplyDeleteThey are outside of the venue -- typically a church -- on public sidewalks. They don't go inside to protest at the service itself. That kind of behavior, in my opinion, would definitely cross the line.
ReplyDeleteOh. While it's certainly a disrespectful thing to do, the question as to whether it should be legal in this circumstance for people to protest on public sidewalks off of private property, I suppose I can understand the controversy. I suppose they should probably be allowed to protest, but I don't know what they expect to accomplish from spewing hate. As they say, "as you sow so shall you reap". The behavior of these protesters does not seem very Jesus like. And that is all I have to say about that.
ReplyDelete