Yesterday, our freedom of speech was put to the test. In an eight-to-one vote, the Supreme Court ruled that hateful protests at military funerals are protected under the First Amendment. The decision came following a suit by Albert Snyder, the father of a deceased Marine, against protesters who were picketing outside of his son's funeral. The protesters — members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. — have staged demonstrations at hundreds of funerals across the country, promoting the message that God is killing U.S. troops because the country is tolerant of homosexuality.
Snyder sued on the basis that their protests were invasive of privacy and intentionally caused emotional distress. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the protests were not in violation of the law, citing that the speech addressed matters of public concern and that the protesters were peaceful, compliant with the police and were not interfering with the funeral itself.
Protesting in such a manner is deplorable, especially at a funeral at which a family is grieving for their deceased child. Still, the Supreme Court's decision to protect the protesters' rights is the correct one. It may seem morally just to outlaw protests such as these — and it is concievable that laws that protect people from harassment could be used as justification for outlawing such behavior — but it is important that the Supreme Court not waver on matters of free speech and freedom of assembly when protestors operate in a public setting and remain within their legal limits.
A lower court had previously ruled in favor of Snyder, and his claims of emotional distress were undoubtedly valid. But the Supreme Court rightly recognized that all citizens, regardless of the extremity of their opinions, have the right to protest and express those views without fear of legal retribution.
While this particular decision only addresses one instance of hate speech, it is significant in that it represents the greater importance of protecting speech and protest, regardless of the message. Many countries that do not afford their citizens the First Amendment rights that we enjoy in the United States have formatted their laws in such ways that they can shut down protests deemed unacceptable by the government with relative ease. The United States cannot make exceptions for particular types of protests without completely violating the principles behind this constitutional protection. In order for the Constitution to be viable and truly protect citizens' rights, it must be upheld with complete integrity.
Since the Supreme Court's decision, leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church have announced that they intend to quadruple the number of protests at military funerals. With the amount of outrage such an announcement is likely to incite, the controversy surrounding these demonstrations is undoubtedly far from over, in spite of the Court's decision. But as long as the protesters abide by the laws of peaceful protest, they should be permitted to exercise their First Amendment rights, incensing though they may be.
