Tuesday, October 29, 2013

The Price of Free Expression For All

One of the greatest freedoms we, as Americans enjoy is the right to free expression. We can speak our minds about anything, whether it is in agreement or disagreement without any fear of punishment. On paper, it sounds just and makes sense. However, when it comes to difficult circumstances like the Westboro Baptist Church’s aggressive outcry against homosexuality, abortion and other hot topics. Their actions often rub people in the wrong way and are seen as transparently disrespectful to the mass. Even though a majority of the people disagrees with the church’s tactics and beliefs, the First Amendment protects them. Which means that anyone who retaliates against the church’s statements is acting against the First Amendment.
Westboro Baptist Church, a Kansas based church, has been in the eye of the free expression storm for quite some time now. The religiously outspoken church is known for its extreme course of action. They have been seen picketing at soldiers’ funerals and protesting against homosexuality (Westboro Baptist Church, 2013). Despite of their seemingly insulting approach, the First Amendment protects their actions. This article focuses on an attack on the Westboro Church via hacking their official website. Despite the fact that the Westboro Church famously alienates majority support, it is not legally acceptable for anyone to retaliate the organization’s beliefs and values.
The First Amendment protects the church’s right to protest as many soldiers’ funerals as they want as long as they follow the precedent limits and rules. Even though their actions may be hurtful and disrespectful, they still have every right to express themselves freely (Policinski, 2012). In this situation, author Brad Thor’s quote resonates a truth, “I live in America. I have the right to write whatever I want. And it's equaled by another right just as powerful: the right not to read it. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people.” The First Amendment is written to protect each and every person’s right to free expression among other rights. In order for it to work successfully, there cannot be any exceptions, even if it is hurtful, like in this case. Chief Justice Roberts brilliantly explained, “In public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” In order for the First Amendment to work successfully, there cannot be exceptions made against organizations like the Westboro Church. It is one of the prices we all must pay for freedom.

1 comment:

  1. I think this is an interesting topic because the Westboro Baptist Church both spreads hate and causes others to hate them. They cause a lot of discussion about gay rights, abortion rights, and the treatment we give our military veterans. In my opinion, the current freedom of speech laws fully guarantee the right of the WBC to share their opinions.

    Using the marketplace of ideas concept, it is easy to argue that the best ideas prevail in this example. Since the WBC has begun protesting military funerals, many other people have come to block them from disturbing the family of the deceased. This shows that there even without banning the WBC for their speech, American citizens have figured out a way to stifle the hate of the WBC. Also, very few Americans take the WBC seriously. The vast majority think of them as a hate group without any real basis for their claims.

    In addition, I think the protests put on by the WBC have caused healthy discussion about other issues, such as gay marriage. Americans that may have never thought deeply about gay marriage rights now have a reason to think about it. When people see the actions of the WBC, they are largely against their ideas and their presentation. In this way, the WBC may actually cause the exact opposite change they are aiming for: people may sway toward supporting gay rights. I have several relatives who have told me that the hatred of the WBC caused them to examine their own personal beliefs.

    ReplyDelete