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.
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.
ReplyDeleteUsing 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.