Concerning Freedom of Speech and Homophobes

November 2, 2007 3:56 AM

he father of a veteran who's funeral was protested at by Fred Phelps's crazy church won a $10 million verdict the other day. The church defended on First Amendment grounds but it was a civil case, so I'm not really sure what the First Amendment has to do with anything--the First Amendment doesn't preclude suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress, for example. Still, I think the underlying question--whether the First Amendment protects hateful protesting at a funeral--is interesting.

As a preliminary matter, I think I should say that I don't think this kind of protest is justified, desirable, or even morally cool. But whether it or should be protected by the First Amendment is an entirely different question.

There are many reasons I think the First Amendment is a good idea, but certainly allowing for the existence of a marketplace of ideas is up there. By keeping our discourse free from idealogical barriers, we assure ourselves that all ideas will be evaluated on the basis of their merit. Good ideas will stick; bad ideas will be forgotten. That might be the ideal, but it's a really good ideal to strive for. Automatically excluding some ideas or some methods of expression should therefore only happen when there is some damned good reason to do so.

But I think that the marketplace of ideas is only part of the reason for why the First Amendment is such a good thing. I think that there is inherent value to allowing people to say whatever they happen to want to say. The freedom to speak my mind is one of my most valued freedoms. If I can't say what's on my mind because someone else--be it the government, a friend, my boss--doesn't like what I have to say, fuck them. I'm willing to accept reasonable restrictions on that--I'd probably never say "You know, fuck diversity!" during a deposition--but that's just a given. I think that it's important that our society be as open and free as possible. And I think that, in order to maintain such a society, we have to allow people to use their words and actions to speak, regardless of whether their message is moving, banal, or offensive. That's why I think the marketplace of ideas thing is inadequate: it suggests that we should only protect important speech, or speech that makes some recognized contribution to the marketplace. But I think that people have the inalienable right to make a life-size chocolate version of Jesus just because, hey, that's fucking cool, even if it pisses people off.

I don't think the government--or anyone else--has the right to condemn speech simply because they happen to think it's worthless. The whole point is to allow all ideas, not just those that someone considers to have worth. Yeah, racism is stupid, but you have the right to spew your stupid rhetoric. Yeah, homophobia is offensive, but you have the right to use the word "fag."

And, yeah, it's pretty fucking terrible to show up at a soldier's funeral and tell his father that God hated his son. And it's even worse to have big signs saying that his soul is burning in hell. And it baffles me how someone could interpret the Bible that way. But, goddamnit, this is America, and doing all of that is your fucking right.

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

4 Comments

TheExpat said:

Yes, there speech is protected by the First Amendment. That's why we need a new amendment, one that protects the rights of private citizens who, confronted with the grief of the loss of a loved one, fly into a frothing rage and beat a bunch of foul-mouthed protesters into a bloody, barely recognizable pulp.

November 2, 2007 10:55 AM

TheExpat said:

swap 'there' with 'their'

November 2, 2007 9:43 PM

lily graypure said:

While I agree in principle, I have trouble with it, because I don't think people always have all the facts or the energy to evaluate ideas based on their merit. People tend to trust the persuasive tone and body language of others, resting in large part on charisma and the way things "seem" or have seemed in their own personal experience. People with uncommon persuasive skills or personal magnetism can do a lot of harm to the debate in the meantime. Most people tire of constantly having to reconsider their opinions and change their opinions. It grows especially difficult as you age, because you're accused of being inconsistent.

That said, speech and ideas do have their own checks and balances. You're right--eventually, good ideas prevail. Eventually. I just shudder to think of the damage that is done meanwhile.

November 4, 2007 8:08 PM

Wade said:

I would totally eat a life-sized chocolate Jesus.

And the members of that crazy church are ridiculous. I'm surprised they haven't been punched in the face and/or shot by now. After all, these are military families they're messing with.

November 6, 2007 11:26 AM

Leave a comment

Name

Email Address

URL

Remember personal info?

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)