Thirith on 16/3/2010 at 07:57
I was wondering whether the Americans* on this board can explain something to me: with respect to the Phelbs' clan's wonderful habit of protesting at funerals, I've seen the same old discussions of freedom of speech vs. protection from hate speech on a number of sites.
*By and large, I've found that most of the discussions about this tend to polarise along the following lines: USA on the one side, Europe on the other, with a number of exceptions on both sides.
What I don't get is the frequent argument that as distasteful as Phelbs and his band of fuckers is, if they made his particular brand of public rhetoric in earshot of funerals illegal, "if they restrict his right to free speech, what will happen when they try to do the same to me?" To my mind, there can be a fairly clear distinction between free, critical discourse and hateful rhetoric spouted in earshot of mourning family and friends. There's a relatively clear difference between hate speech and criticism, and legislating against the former doesn't automatically lead to an infringement of the latter, unless the law is formulated so stupidly that it covers everything or nothing. And yes, there's always a grey area, but there is with most laws - which is why there's judges and juries and appeals. To my mind there's a difference in kind between criticism, even harsh criticism, and "Your son's burning in hell right now, 'cause God hates all fags!"
But obviously many people don't see this difference in kind. They see all of this speech on a continuum, it would seem, and restricting the Phelbses' right to free speech, regardless of the speech and the context, risks infringing the latter.
Chances are that this thread won't help me understand either - just like discussions about gun rights, I'm thinking that I may very well just fail to understand the other position on this one. (To be honest, the argument for letting these and other buttheads continue spouting their hateful drivel wherever, whenever, always sound like "Blah blah blah Constitution blah blah blah First Amendment blah blah..." to me.) But I thought I'd try anyway - perhaps someone here can help me understand.
(For the record, I'm not saying that Phelbs & Co. should automatically be charged when they open their mouths, but to my mind there's a difference between letting him and his ilk stage one of their hate-ins pretty much right in the face of mourners.)
*By and large, I've found that most of the discussions about this tend to polarise along the following lines: USA on the one side, Europe on the other, with a number of exceptions on both sides.
Fragony on 16/3/2010 at 08:06
We are kinda in the middle of that with the Wilders trial, you should find it interesting.
ZymeAddict on 16/3/2010 at 09:20
What I've never understood about the Phelps thing is why do people like you care about what he and his little group say so much?
Unless you follow his exact religious tenets then you believe what he has to say is completely ridiculous anyway, so why are you offended?
And you can't even use the typical liberal "offended on another's behalf" argument in this case either, as Phelps has literally insulted every major group - religious, governmental, societal, or otherwise - in the entire world in the same way as homosexuals, and states we are all morally equivalent.
And besides, they've been banned from protesting near funerals anyway, so there is nothing to worry about there.
Personally, I tend to only pay attention to them for their entertainment value.
Thirith on 16/3/2010 at 09:25
Quote Posted by ZymeAddict
What I've never understood about the Phelps thing is why do people like you care about what he and his little group say so much?
To me, it's worth protecting the mourners at a funeral. While I hate Phelbs and everything he stands for, I'm relatively okay with him spouting his inane, hateful drivel somewhere else, but a funeral for a loved one is something else. And I doubt that they see the entertainment value in the hatefests at such funerals.
ZymeAddict on 16/3/2010 at 09:27
Sorry, I should have clarified before.
They've been banned from protesting within a certain distance of funerals. That's not really an issue anymore.
Thirith on 16/3/2010 at 09:34
That's already better. However, from what I've seen, I'd be more than happy if they increased the distance. Right now it seems to be something like 150m, which isn't all that much - as far as I'm concerned, they should be prohibited from picketing anywhere within earshot of a funeral.
Anyway, that's a detail. I'm interested in the larger issue and I'm hoping to understand the First Amendment Über Alles position better. So far I've always come away from discussions on the issue thinking that there's a cultural or ideological divide there that makes it pretty difficult for either side to fully understand the other.
Kolya on 16/3/2010 at 09:44
You can find similar (and justified) fears in Europe, related to public surveillance and reserve communication data storage. While the intention of these techniques may be well meaning, the ramifications could be disastrous.
At large it's the line between individual freedom and common good which is constantly being fought over on both sides of the pond. For historical/cultural reasons freedom of speech is a big one in the US. Like the rejection of identity cards and gun laws, these can all be traced back to the times of the first settlers, which must have been last week or so. But Americans aren't always that sensitive with their personal freedom, see patriot act.
Rug Burn Junky on 16/3/2010 at 09:48
Quote Posted by ZymeAddict
Sorry, I should have clarified before.
They've been banned from protesting within a certain distance of funerals. That's not really an issue anymore.
That decision was overturned on appeal to the circuit court last fall, and was just recently granted certiori for an appeal before SCOTUS, so it's not a settled matter by any means.
Short answer is:
There is an extreme aversion to restricting even distasteful content, because that leaves minority viewpoints particularly vulnerable to restriction - in certain areas of the country, saying "there is no god" is more distasteful than saying "your son's a fag," and you'd really rather not have the courts wading into this and deciding what can and can't be said in close cases.
In spite of this extreme revulsion, there's a principle under common law penalizing the "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" - and picketing someone's funeral is so far beyond the pale that it is considered an intentional infliction of exactly that sort. That was the basis for the initial decision.
Long answer's going to have to wait, because it's 5:45 am, and I have to get to bed.
Thirith on 16/3/2010 at 09:54
Looking forward to a longer reply, RBJ. Sleep well. :)
june gloom on 16/3/2010 at 11:58
I'd love to hear the rest of RBJ's response.
As my own particular addition to this thread, I'm just going to repaste something I said in an (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127209) older thread:
Quote Posted by dethtoll
In the United States hate speech is protected
unless it qualifies as defamation or incitement to riot.
Brandenburg v. Ohio illustrates this point. Basically in 1969 Brandenburg, a Klan leader, contacted a local (Cincinnati) TV reporter and invites him to the Klan meet. Parts of the rally were filmed, including one particular speech calling for "revengeance" (lol) on blacks and Jews. Brandenburg was charged and convicted with advocating violence. He took it to the Supreme Court, who overturned his conviction on the grounds that the speech did not qualify as likely to incite
imminent lawless action- a key phrase. It basically means that speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned.
With regards to Phelps, he and his clan are generally free to spew their hate because nobody takes them seriously. He's been banned from funerals in several states, but the ban in Kentucky was overturned; that said, there is a motorcycle group called the Patriot Guard Riders who keep the Phelps clan away from military funerals Phelps intends to protest.
