Westboro Baptish Church: Fine line between "beliefs" and prejudice.

Outrage at Funeral Protests Pushes Lawmakers to Act On April 2 2006, a 20-year old marine by the name of Corporal David A. Bass was killed in Iraq. His funeral was held on April 11, however, it was not a peaceful one. Protesters, along with their picket signs stood outside across the street and “celebrated” the Corporal's death. These protesters were from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas which is primarily lead by the Phelps family with the spokesperson being Shirley-Roper Phelps, Reverend Fred Phelps' daughter. They believed that the soldiers who are doing military service for the country deserved to be killed and believe that it is God's punishment to America for being a nation that condemns and supports homosexuality. Cpl. Bass' funeral wasn't the only funeral that the members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested at. There have been various funerals of fallen soldiers who were killed both in Iraq and Afghanistan that they have demonstrated such protests. Prior to that, the members have also protested outside funerals of people who have died from AIDS because the members of the church believe that it is these people's punishment for being gay. America's Most Hated Family. Some of their signs read “Thank god for dead soldiers”, “God Hates Fags” and “Fags Doom Nation”.

We all know that as an individual, we possess the right to freedom of speech. But once those speeches have turned into a “hate speech”, affect a group of people and disturb the peace, it is when measures should be taken.

Cohen v. California / Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire as precedents:
In 1968, Paul Robert Cohen was arrested for wearing a jacket that said “Fuck the Draft”. In his defense, Cohen said that he did not mean any harm by it, that it was just his personal expression to oppose the war in Vietnam. However, he went against a California law. A law that did not allow any form of bad conduct that would propel a violent act by the speaker or by the people around him. “This Court has also held that the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called "fighting words," those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.” (Cohen v. California) It was the use of words on his jacket, the way it was projected and communicated to the public that got him in trouble. One of the Constitution's reasoning for not protecting Cohen was “(2)much provocative language does serve the function of communicating both ideas and emotions” (Tedford and Beck 175)

In Westboro's case, their hate protests would certainly not be protected. Members might have been just voicing out what they believed in, just like Cohen. However, a funeral is a sacred moment for the fallen soldiers and their families and the protests serves as a disturbance of peace. These families who have lost their loved ones are dealing with so much emotions as is and hearing chants and seeing hurtful picket signs would just intensify or add on to their emotional state of being even more.

Moreover, the Westboro case highly touches upon the offense and respect theory. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case, Walter Chaplisnky, a Jehovah's Witness preached in the streets of Rochester, New Hampshire that organized religion was a racket. When he was taken to the precinct, he then cursed at a city marshal (someone of authority) calling him a Fascist and saying “You are a God damned racketeer”. Though Chaplinsky did not have any weapon on him to cause physical threat, his speech was not protected because they “incite(d) an immediate breach of the peace” (Tedford and Beck, 170). More importantly, he used offensive language to another person in a public place which was a violation to the public laws of New Hampshire.

Westboro's message might not be solely directed to the deceased but to America as a whole. Nevertheless, they used the deaths of the soldiers as an excuse to rally their hate for homosexuality. Not only were the messages controversial but they are also hurtful, offensive and disrespectful which have already angered many people, especially those families who were mourning for their loss. Surely, this in itself provoke the violation of peace. Although the members' intentions were mostly emotional harm and not physically harm, the receivers of their message could break out and engage in physical harm due to anger thus jump starting the breach of peace.

Furthermore, though the church members used standing far away from where the funeral was being held as a strategy to not “invade privacy”, they were still around the funeral's vicinity and bystanders and people in their vehicles passing by were still able to see them. It wasn't like they were doing these protests quietly, they really wanted to get their message across and be heard.

In conclusion, the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church should not be protected. They are clearly engaging in hate speech that serves as offensive and disrespectful expressions towards a group of people. It is a mere expression on their beliefs and faith but a prejudice towards a certain group. Clear and present danger might not apply however bad tendency does. Using foul and offensive language and messages-- repeatedly outside funerals definitely shows immediate incitement.

Post 1: Ecce Homo Exhibition and Jyllands-Posten Cartoon case

Laws governing communication should primarily be to protect an individual universal civil liberty even if asserted against the group. I think that it would serve balance in governing the rights of people. People's rights are protected but at the same time, they won't be able to abuse their power through creating violence or harming other citizens. Yes, it seems paradoxical-- civil liberty protects your rights but you can't use them to the fullest extent. But I think that other private citizens also have the rights to be protected. So for me, this law comes in two-folds, freedom to do what you want and get your message across but with the notion of peaceful freedom, thus other citizens are protected as well.

I would protect the speakers who created the speech in “Ecce Homo” Exhibition and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons.

For the Ecce Homo, I believe that is a form of art expression and not degrading Christianity. Art is a freedom of speech just as paintings, music, etc. are. Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Perhaps Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin wanted the LGBT community to be heard and by doing this through a very controversial exhibition, they surely got heard, without the intention of harming others. This case supports the law I sided with above. Sure, it might have affected other citizens however it did not harm them in any way. And it wasn't just the private citizens who got affected, some of the LGBT community questioned this satire stating their concerns about being degraded or stereotyped. I think that is on the individual's discretion whether they want to view the exhibition or not. If you think it is going to negatively affect you, then don't go. If you're curious to see the exhibition, then go but don't speak negatively of it or do something to sabotage the peacefulness of the exhibition-- nobody said you had to go and see it. Some found it sacrilegious and that's okay too. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. If an individual had a strong belief in Christianity, I don't think it would make his or her faith in the religion any less. The fact that the exhibition was held in churches says a lot about how it was accepted by the people.

As for the Muslim cartoons by Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons, I think that the cartoons didn't mean any harm, initially. I think that it was an innocent attempt to put humor in political issues, mainly for the Danish population. But inevitably, Muslim followers would get offended because their prophet Muhammad was used for the criticism of Islam in cartoon form (just how the sacred biblical situations for the Ecce Homo case was portrayed in a different light). Number two of Article 27 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.” The cartoonists have the right to be protected as long as they don't cause harm to others. And I think it wasn't their intention to cause riots and chaos. On the contrary, Muslim followers possess the rights to feel protected and not discriminated against. For me, the publication of the cartoons was fine. Perhaps if those who were offended found out first hand what the cartoons represented or what the Danes were trying to interpret, massive chaos could have been prevented. However, because of the ripple effect on chaos that it had unfortunately caused, the Danish paper and Muslims who were affected, offended and even harmed by it should find a common ground to resolve the issues and controversies. Both parties have the right to exercise their freedom of speech but in a harmonious manner and considerate manner.

In conclusion, I believe that as an individual citizen, you take what you see from a situation. More or less, you come out from that situation with a certain perspective. If you feel that what was demonstrated was wrong in any way, you have the right to your own opinion and even voice it out. But for the sake of other people's protection, the exercise of free speech should be in a considerate way where nobody would get harmed. For me voicing out an opinion is very important as long as it's done in a civilized manner. Voicing out an opinion, for me, is not a form of aggressiveness but a way to make things right. Number two of Article 29 sums it up very well: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. "