The Supreme Court rules in favor of the Westboro Baptists

  From an earlier post of mine about the Westboro Baptists:

 I can’t even begin to express the disregard in which I hold the Westboro Baptists. This is the group of people who go around the country under the guise of Christianity and protest at the funerals of our heroes who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming that these deaths are retribution from God because of the United States’ acceptance of gays and lesbians.

  While our heroes are being laid to rest, these despicable human beings shout slogans such as “God hates fags,” as well as “thank God for dead soldiers,” and “God hates the USA.” Siting their first amendment rights to free speech, the freedom of religion, and the right to peacefully protest as justification for their intolerant and despicable acts, they continue to interrupt these funerals as distraught family members try to mourn their loved ones.

  What these “christians” fail to remember is the simple fact that those whom they are protesting died defending the rights of the Westboro Baptists to conduct such a deplorable protest in the first place. Technically they are not doing anything that is not within their rights, but I would argue that just because you have the right to do something, that doesn’t mean you should do something. This isn’t an issue of rights–much like the Ground Zero Mosque–these people have the right to do what they are doing–but rather an issue of common decency, and that is what these people are missing. In my opinion, these people should be protesting in Washington, not at the private ceremonies for fallen heroes.

  Now, onto today’s story: The father of a Marine who was killed in Iraq decided to sue the Westboro Baptists for disrupting his son’s funeral and earlier today the Supreme Court ruled that the father had no case because the Westboro Baptists were simply exercising their first amendment rights. The case was decided by an 8-1 margin with Justice Alito being the lone dissenter.

 Here is what Justice Alito said in his statement:

Snyder wanted only to “bury his son in peace.” Instead, Alito said, the protesters “brutally attacked” Matthew Snyder to attract public attention. “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case

  I agree with the sentiment behind his statement: I agree that the Westboro Baptists used the funeral of this man’s son to draw attention to themselves by protesting at the service, and as I wrote earlier, I despise this group and all that they stand for. But the fact remains that one cannot stifle free speech just because one does not agree with the message contained in that speech.

  I wrote above that the Westboro Baptists weren’t doing anything that they didn’t have the right to do, but that just because you have the right to do something that doesn’t mean that you should do it. The Supreme Court has ruled exactly the position which I have held in regard to the Westboro Baptists and while the group is a reprehensible lot that doesn’t mean that they should be silenced.

  The Westboro Baptists may he exercising their first amendment rights and while I will defend their rights, I cannot possibly condone the way they choose to exercise them. What they are lacking is compassion and just plain common decency, there could be a much more productive manner in which to voice their displeasure with the federal government. And the ironic part about this whole story is the fact that I would be willing to bet that those whose have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan would claim they died to protect the rights of this group to do what they are doing.

  Now it is up to the individual states to pass legislation which would assure that no protests can be held within a certain distance from a funeral and several states have already done so (New Hampshire and Arizona to name two) and that is where the power should lie in the first place.