By Adam Robak
Editor-in-Chief
Freedom of speech has been a hotly contested issue throughout our nation’s history, even as recently as this year. On March 2, the Supreme Court ruled astutely on the issue in its controversial Syder vs. Phelps decision.
The Court ruled 8-1 that the members of the despicable Westboro Baptist Church have the right to engage in malicious anti-gay protests, even if that protest takes place at a military funeral.
As atrocious as these protests are, the decision accurately reflects the civil rights stipulated by the First Amendment.
However, I want to clarify that just having the right to protest doesn’t make Westboro’s actions even remotely acceptable.
This detestable cult protests at military funerals, claiming that God allows U.S. servicemen to be killed because our nation does not condemn gay people.
Their hateful and homophobic demonstrations are reprehensible and demonstrate irresponsible use of free speech.
Upon first reading of the Court’s decision, I was outraged. How could the church’s actions possibly be justified? But after further reflection, I have realized that this is part of the price we pay for supporting free speech.
Even lunatics like the Westboro Baptist Church have the same rights as the rest of us; it is the central quality of the free speech we love to tout.
The Supreme Court has historically supported free speech, even when it is offensive and hurtful. As long as the speech pertains to a public issue and does not provoke violence, it is constitutionally valid.
This guiding principle is evident in Village of Skokie vs. National Socialist Party of America, where a group of Nazis was granted the right to march in the predominately Jewish town of Skokie because the march did directly not incite violence.
Even without a previous history of similar decisions, the Court was wise not to deviate from the historic precedent of generally unrestricted speech.
The case, which highlights the ever-present tolerance of intolerance that comes from free speech, also reminds us to be mindful of our own speech.
While the decision affirms that we have the right to express our own opinions, Westboro’s actions remind us that it is our responsibility to raise the level of discourse to meet moral and ethical standards.
When we don’t agree with someone else’s ideology, we need to reassess the tone and quality of our speech to assure that it remains civil and enlightened. Although initially frustrating, this standard is crucial to the long-term health of our debate-driven society.
As an editor, this decision reminds me of the balance we have to strike between civil rights and moral conscience. As journalists, we have the right to print and say what may be offensive and hurtful, as long as it does not constitute a personal attack.
At the same time, simply having this right does not mean that we print whatever we want. We always exercise discretion and forethought before we say or print anything controversial.
As tragic as it is that the Westboro Baptist Church will continue to hold its hurtful protests, its victory is an assurance that we all have the right to free speech, no matter how controversial.
While the decision protects our right to free speech, Westboro’s inflammatory abuse of its First Amendment rights shows that it is our responsibility to regulate the ethical standards of our speech. No one, not even the Supreme Court, will do that for us.
Leave a Reply