[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
I sympathize with you Mercury. I really, really do sympathize with you, and I think your heart is in the right place. I hate these people’s guts, and I hate the fact that I feel I need to defend them, but I do.
[/quote]
Unnecessary, but appreciated all the same.
[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
IANAL, but if what they did really constituted harrassment, then why would we need a special law to prohibit them from protesting at funerals? No matter how you slice it, this is content-based censorship, and content-based censorship is a dangerous thing. Counterprotest them, shout them down, or let the Patriot Guard come down to block them from the family. Just don’t violate their civil rights for the sake of a serviceman or -woman who died while sworn to protect them.
[/quote]
You are correct about this. And I meant to include this in my earlier post, that this is the crux of the ACLU’s argument. Sorry. There are troublesome issues involved in creating these laws when they are provoked by such a specific instance or group. However, I would argue that this is not “content based censorship,” but context-based, which takes it out of the realm of censorship at all. I will address this below, because I do believe, factually, that what the WBC does is harassment, not just “protesting.” Therefore, we circumvent the need for a special law and the problems it creates by simply enforcing the laws that exists for harassment.
[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
It’s sort of like flag-burning. Quite a few people would like to see this outlawed as well, and I can’t say as I blame them, as I consider flag-burners total scuzz-buckets, but I don’t think flag-burning should be outlawed either. I might hate it, but it’s protected by the constitution (until the right-wingnuts manage to get that amendment passed, anyway).
[/quote]
I have no issues with flag burning, as I think it’s an empty gesture. I do understand that a veteran will probably take great offense to the idea of a flag being burned, but the consequence of a free society is that we sometimes, or often, see things that we find horribly offensive. (Don’t think me a hypocrite yet, I will explain.)
[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
Again, I hate the Phelps’s. I hate what they say. But I sure don’t hate their right to say it.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, entirely. They do have a right to think what they think, and the right to say what they say, regardless of how ignorant or repellent I think it is. However, as I said above, this isn’t an issue of content, but of context. Does the WBC have the right to stage a demonstration in the public forum (or their own private domain) to advertise and promote their virulent hatred for homosexuals? Absolutely. Them’s the breaks in an open society. However, they are crossing a very important line.
In the public forum, such offensive displays as the WBC, a KKK rally, or flag burning are protected free speech, because we all accept the “risk” of offense when we accept the rights we have in our society. However I think it is a huge leap to assume that a funeral is within the domain of the “public forum.” Just because they are outside, doesn’t mean that they aren’t private affairs. The difference between the WBC staging a rally in downtown Topeka, KS or following people to a funeral is the same difference in me burning a flag in protest in downtown Anywhere, US or following a veteran to his home or place of business and burning a flag on the sidewalk outside while shouting “Baby killing fag!” over and over.
Now why are these two latter infractions harassment, and not protected speech? Because of the implied right of the people in regards to offensive material—the right to avoid it if they so choose. This is what makes the offensiveness tolerable in an open and supposedly peaceful society. If I think a painting is offensive, I can speak out, and more importantly, I can simply choose to not view/support the painting—which is the defense many of us Libertarians have in the past invoked when confronted with issues of offense. If I think a television show is mean spirited, I can turn it off. And if I think rally/demonstration is offensive, I have the right to avoid it if I so choose. What is so wrong about the individual illustrations I have stated above, and with Phelps, what makes what they do harassment, is that they rob people of this second implied right, which is just as essential as freedom of speech to the open society we supposedly enjoy. They aren’t just demonstrating offensive ideas, which is their right to do absolutely, they are following around specific individuals and groups and targeting them for harassment. They are, in the pursuit of their own “liberty,” trampling all over the liberty of others. That’s not free speech, in any sense; it is the enemy of free speech. It’s worse than a perversion of the First Amendment; it is a threat to everything that the First Amendment was designed to protect.
I understand where you are coming from; believe me, I am a Libertarian as well (If I’m wrong in that assumption, I apologize). It seems the natural Libertarian reaction to assume that “free speech” should always be protected, regardless of how offensive it is. And I concede to your agreement with the ACLU that special laws inspired by Phelps are more dangerous than necessary and could be more harm than good. I do not, however, believe for a second that Phelps is within his rights as an American citizen here, ethically, politically, or legally. And I will not concede that the right to free speech can be construed to mean the right to harass.