Today's Supreme Court Ruling - Fine Line Between Protected Speech and Fighting Words

I really should be studying, but I felt that I needed to take a brief study break to blog about this.  As I am sure many people have already read, the United States Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, holding that the First Amendment protects the church's hate-filled anti-gay protests at military funerals.  Again, I am extremely liberal on all social issues, so if you think that my comments might offend you, now is the time to exit this post.

I do not think homosexuality is a choice, and I do not think that it is a "sin" that will send homosexual individuals to hell.  Forgive me for being Gaga (Lady Gaga, that is), but I think that "God makes no mistakes" and that gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals were born that way. Some of the kindest and most amazing people that I know are gay. So, needless to say, I find the views and actions of Westboro completely deplorable and, quite frankly, anti-Christian.

I confess that I am not extremely religious.  I believe in God and Jesus Christ, but I don't agree with everything about the Christian faith.  However, I do know, and believe, that Christians are supposed to forgive. I definitely do not believe that God nor Jesus would want people to purposefully and permanently hurt other people in their names. This church disgusts me. For those who do not remember, the church also boycotted Elizabeth Edward's funeral with signs saying "God Bless Breast Cancer." WHAT?!?!  Even if those people do not believe in the things that Elizabeth Edwards believed in, how could you say that?  I am sure that there are faithful Christians who are kind and loving people, and who also disagree with homosexuality.  I in no way think that that belief makes someone an unkind person, and people are entitled to feel that way.  However, to say "God Bless Breast Cancer" is ridiculous from a logical perspective, as members of the Westboro Church could easily be inflicted by the tragedy that is breast cancer, and I would be willing to bet that they wouldn't want their loved one's funeral picketed with such disgusting signs.

There really are just no words to describe how disgusting I think these people are.  To say such things to people who are grieving the loss of a loved one - it makes me truly wonder if these people have souls. Not to mention, I despise the "Thank God for Dead Soliders" signs as well.  How dare these people?  They are thanking God for killing the very men and women who have fought and lost their lives to give the members of the church the very rights that they are so happily exercising today - the rights to freedom of speech and religion.

With that being said, I do not entirely believe that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision today. Of all of the rights guaranteed to American citizens through the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution, freedom of speech is one of the most important guarantees. The Constitution has always protected free speech, no matter how socially or morally repugnant that speech may be.  To prohibit any one form of speech or expression is to create a slippery slope down which we may lose even more rights.

But there is a chance to prohibit this conduct in another way.  For those of you who are not familiar with Constitutional law, there are four types of speech that are not protected: 1) Fighting Words, 2) Words that Incite Violence, 3) Defamatory Speech, and 4) Obscene Speech.  While many people, myself included, likely feel as though the actions of Westboro are "obscene," from a Constitutional standpoint, the obscenity exception to First Amendment protection only applies to speech/forms of express appealing to the prurient interest (dealing with sex). The "incitement" exception essentially requires a direction to another to commit violence or other lawless conduct (i.e., Sarah - go kill X).

I believe that the exceptions to protection pertaining to "fighting words" and "defamation," however, could be broadened to encompass the protests by Westboro.  "Fighting words" are those which the person uttering them should expect to incite a violent response. Racial epithets and ethnic slurs have been included in this category of speech and have thereby been found to be unprotected. I believe that the actions and language of the Westboro protestors should be included here.  Granted, I am a white woman, so I do not know what it would feel like to be attacked by racial epithets and ethnic slurs.  However, I feel as though I would be more inclined to violently respond to someone picketing my brother or parent's funeral than to someone attacking me personally.  I think that the contested speech and actions should fall outside of First Amendment protection because such conduct and language should be considered "fighting words."  Also, some of these soliders whose funerals the protestors are picketing are NOT, in fact, homosexuals. To imply otherwise could be considered defamation.

So, while I understand in some ways why the Supreme Court held in the way that it did, I am hopeful that, in the near future, the Court will reconsider and hopefully find a Constitutional way to prohibit such hateful and tasteless conduct.

Here is the link to the story -

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/02/supreme-court-rules-for-westboro-baptist-church-funeral-proteste/?icid=maing|aim|dl1|sec1_lnk1|47753