The Foxboro Baptist Church, the Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech

The Westboro Baptist Church and its leader Fred Phelps are reprehensible. Their actions in promoting their anti-gay agenda are beyond the pale of common decency. But in spite of its deeply offensive and inhumane insensitivity, it is political speech. They believe that this country and our government have adopted policies toward homosexuality that offend them, and this is their way of protesting those public policies. This form of protest so attacks our sensibilities that we react in a totally emotional way. We hate what they are doing and we want it stopped and stopped now.

Therein lay the trap. Our common sense and our compassion tell us that their actions are wrong, should be stopped, and we want government to use its police power to put an end to this behavior that we find offensive. To do that would make us feel better, but in demanding that government restrict speech simply because we find it offensive hurts us all. Where is the bar set? If we want to maintain the freedoms that we cherish, those freedoms which made this a great and exceptional country, the freedoms that create opportunity for every person who comes here; then we must accept that those freedoms must be protected, even if we find the persons seeking protection to be disgusting in their behavior.

In their quest to remain popular and electable, politicians react to the visceral whims of the masses and pass laws that are ill conceived and unenforceable. Often knowing that these laws will be struck down by the courts, they get the opportunity to go on camera and decry the actions of "activist" judges who simply refuse to bend to the will of the people. This attitude ignores the fact that everyone in this country has rights even if we find their actions heinous. If we enact special laws or interpret those already on the books to limit the rights of those who offend us, then the bar moves ever higher and less and less freedom is the result.

A part of the problem is the compromised view of what freedom truly means in this country. Over the years free speech has become distorted in that a person can burn the flag, not to make a political statement, but merely to offend others, and it's considered free speech. A person can make a pornographic movie and it is considered free speech, or wear a shirt with an obscene slogan, or simply shout obscenities on a street corner, and the ACLU along with a parade of media pundits will line up to support the undertaking in the name of the First Amendment.

But that is not freedom, it is condescension. Patronize the masses and they will follow. Meanwhile the politicians take steps to limit real, free, and supposedly protected speech. Whether it is campaign finance "reform" that expressly limits the ability of groups to raise money to oppose politicians that they are against, or promotion of a supposed return to the so-called "fairness doctrine" designed to make it impossible for broadcasters to air political programming that opposes a particular agenda, these are real dangers to our freedom of expressing and exchanging political ideas.

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision declared that the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to protest at the funerals of soldiers. Rarely these days are the Justices so united on such a controversial issue. They expressed in strong terms that our rights under the Constitution exist even if our actions in expressing those rights deeply offend the population at large. But their ruling is not a vindication of Fred Phelps or his doctrine of hate. It is rather a confirmation of the importance of free and unfettered political speech. A healthy and vibrant democracy requires a willingness to hear not just the opinions that we agree with, but those that we disagree with as well. This ruling is a test of our commitment to those ideals that our founding fathers risked, their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to secure. If we can stomach Mr. Phelps and his vitriol, and be guided by the fact that he has successfully found a way to offend people of every political stripe, and still remain dedicated to the defense of our Constitution; then there is hope for the future of political discourse in this country.

It is an old saying, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my last breath your right to say it." This ruling helps affirm that we will not soon be adding " -- as long as you don't offend me."