11:05am | You’ve gotta hand it to the Westboro Baptist Church (viz., the “God Hates Fags” folks):
They know how to get attention.
When they were our, er, guests in Long Beach a little over a year ago, around 2,000
protesters came out to counter-protest the dozen or so WBC members who showed at
Wilson High School.
Now the Kansas-based WBC has managed to get more attention locally for
something that took place all the way in Maryland: the United States Supreme Court has rebuffed the
efforts of Albert Snyder to have the WBC held liable for punitive damages for (among
other things) “intentional infliction of [the] emotional stress” from its members picketing his
son’s military funeral. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the
WBC’s right to do such despicable things.
In Long Beach, and everywhere else, we should be glad.
In considering this issue, there’s an important — but easy — distinction to be made: The
difference between defending what WBC members do and defending their right to do it. And
the fact that this rather conservative iteration of the Supreme Court came down 8-1 in
defending the WBC’s right to do, it says something about the relative clarity of the issue.
Regarding what the WBC does — which is assemble, hold up stupid signs and
sometimes yell stupid things — the First Amendment says the following: “Congress shall
make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble.”
As the court noted in its majority opinion on this case, the despicable nature of
what the WBC members say is a non-issue when it comes to their right to say it.
When confronted with despicable speech, it seems to me there are two legitimate
choices: ignore it (and I still can’t get over how any of us takes the WBC seriously), or do
what we did here in Long Beach: talk back.
Trying for a third option, using the legal system to make incursions on the First
Amendment, even just little ones, is the wrong move. I feel great sympathy for Mr. Snyder’s
loss and for the further upset he was caused by these ludicrous louts, but not so much that
I want to see shrinkage in the First Amendment. That is not even a close call.
As the court has held,
Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful, and its contribution to public
discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. (pp. 14–15)
If the WBC ever comes back to town, we should be glad that they will be returning
with all of their — and our — rights intact. And if we don’t like what they have to say, we
can be glad that we have the right to say whatever we want right back at them.