Following our discussion on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, please read the following current event op-ed piece regarding an upcoming First Amendment Supreme Court case. Once you have read the article, please answer the following questions:
Do you believe the hate speech at issue here should or should not be protected under the First Amendment? Why? Why not?
Post your answer via a comment below. If your login name does not contain your full name, please add your full name to your comment. You are welcome to respond to a prior comment in your own, but please do so respectfully.
I don't believe any form of hate speech should be protected under the First Amendment. There have been different kinds of hate speech in the past that have brought up the same debate. However, we shouldn't pick and choose which speech is acceptable and which isn't. If something harms an individual physically or emotionally then it shouldn't be tolerated. In this particular case, Phelps had a clear hatred for homosexuality and America for accepting it. There is nothing wrong with someone being against issues such as homosexuality. Everyone has an opinion and should be respected for it. However, one must also be considerate of others when they voice their opinion. It is one thing to say you don't support gays and a whole other thing to wish death upon a gay person or someone who supports it.
ReplyDelete-Nina Minassian
Hate speech should not be protected under the first amendment. Last year in government when we were learning about freedom, we learned a fundamental “rule of thumb” for freedom “freedom of one man ends where the freedom of the other begins.” This quote to me expresses that the freedom of speech ends when it emotionally harms the person that the hate speech is being geared towards. Furthermore, Phelps along with some members of his church came to the deceased’s funeral and held up the signs and such where the actual “hate speech” took place, that’s not even a morally correct act to do, hate speech is bad but hate speech against someone who passed away worse; hate speech against someone who passed away during the funeral is beyond immoral. In no way should they get away with it, and the Supreme Court should see to it, that they don’t. To sum it up, hate speech should in no way be protected under the first amendment because it can and does emotionally harm the person in this case the family that it was geared to, not to mention the fact that Phelps and the other church members insulted and said ignorant things about “God is punishing America because of its tolerance for homosexuality, especially in the military.”
ReplyDelete-Manouel Ohanesyan
Okay here's the thing I don't agree with people talking bad about other people especially at a funeral and involving the death of US soldiers that died with a belief of protecting this country. However I do feel that hate speech should be protected because as untasteful as it seems its a form of expression and sometimes a belief and when you prohibit people from expressing their anger even if its disturbing to others you are taking away liberties that were given as human beings to be free and to express what we feel. In addition there are extremists groups out there who abuse this power of freedom of speech but the problem doesn't come from government permiting such behaviour it comes from a moral value. If we need to tell you that its not good to offend a mourning family then obviously the problem lies in your moral values because even enemies in the past have shown respect to its rivals.Tommy Smothers once said “The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that the speech should be a protected speech. There have been other cases that have been protected in prior cases why not this one. It has just the same right to be protected under the first amendment as any other speech. We live in a nation with freedom of speech we should be able to speak freely about how we feel. Others may not be supportive and think differently but a person should be back up and have the right to speak there mind.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Favela
Hate speech has nothing to do with freedom of speech.Hate speeker doesn't just expresses his or her opinion.The fundamental purpose of hate speech is to create instability and chaos and to provoke violence and even a war.
ReplyDeleteShould First Amendment protect speech that leads to such consequences? I don't think so.
This will definitely prove to be a tough case for the United States Supreme Court. First of all, this whole case seems like an organized crime. I agree with the phrase "psychological terrorism" that was used in context. Hate speech should be protected under the First Amendment, HOWEVER it should not be completely protected in all cases. I mean, that would defeat the whole purpose of freedom of speech, as half of what is expressed through this in America is not very positive. It is usually to protect the rights of citizens. In this case, however the hate speech was not justified; first of all, the picketers were protesting against the prevalence of homosexuality in the US military and the deceased soldier was not even homosexual. Also, a funeral, whether commemorating a serial killer or a saint, is an extremely sensitive time for friends and families of the deceased. Infringing upon their right to mourn and their privacy, in addition to posting heinous posts on the internet is something that should not be permissible. In essence, hate speech should be limited (esp. in sensitive matters such as funerals), not completely eliminated as it would defeat the purpose of the First Amendment.
ReplyDelete-Ritika Pandita
I think that hate speech should not be protected because it targets a specific group of people, whether homosexuals,Middle Easterners, or any other type of group. The First Amendment should not protected hate speech since it causes problems between ethnic groups as well as groups of people with different sexual orientations. The Phelps should have respected the father's privacy and the son's funeral because it was disrespectful to the family members, while there were mourning the lose of their loved one, Matthew Synder.
ReplyDeleteHate speech is protected by the First Amendment but I feel that it should not be. If we look back in history, hate speeches led to major riots or disaster. For instance KKK and Hitler. KKK would have meetings and the leader would give some sort of hatred speech towards a race and get the listeners all riled up. This lead to a lot of violence and death. The same thing goes with Hitler. His antisemitic hatred speeches lead to deaths of millions of Jews. If we relate history to this case, who knows what the Phelps are capable of. So stopping all forms of hate speech would lead to more world peace.
ReplyDeletePhelps Vs. Snyder
ReplyDeleteTo begin, the First Admentment does in fact protect the right of any individual or group to say what they want when they want, thus referring to the written statement "freedom of speech, press, religion and petition." There are no other written statements limiting this amendment, thus referring to hate speeches as stated in this artical. Although there may be many controversial answers to this question, I believe the hate speech against Synder should not be protected by the First Amendment for several reasons. First, the Synder family were deeply distraught and heart-broken over the lost of their son. They were attending their sons funeral, while having to hear protests of individuals from Westboro Baptist Church discriminating their son for being a "homosexual" soldier and more closely stating "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags" and "You're Going to Hell." This only did more harm then good by adding to the loss of their son. The family watched their son for the very last as he was buried and they were forced to hear prejudice statements towards their son? That is completely intolerable for anyone. The Synder family had every right to take the Westboro Baptist Church to trial court for emotionally distressing them. Everyone has their own opinion and it is fine if you're against "Homosexuality", but its one thing to present your opinion in a civilized manner opposed to an uncivil and savage like conduct. The Syder Family did what they felt was best and now the Westboro church wants to take them to court all of a sudden for their inappropriate and childlike remarks to be protected by the first amendment, when the case was in regards to the affliction of an emotionally harmed family? I believe the Supreme court should over look this case and take it in to consideration that their conducts were uncivil, tried because of it and should be looked no further. Senators even agreed to sign a letter stating that this case should not be reversed and left alone, and I too agree with this.
Kevin Perez
I feel there should be some type of restrictions on protests when they are held at something as private as a funeral. This all feels wrong on so many levels that i'm surprised it has not come up in the past. It's all just very unfortunate and hateful to a family that didn't diserve the slander against it, especially when this group is only looking for publisity and posssible money out of it. I think even more unfortunate is that the supreme court will most likely not touch the 1st amendment.
ReplyDeleteMatt Roberts
In this particular case, the First Amendment absolutely should not and will not protect this hate speech because it offends people's sextual orientation and dead people who should stay in peace. Plus, the First Amendment says, "Freedom of speech"; it doesn't say cruelly hurt the feelings of a family that is really devastated because they lost their young son by using revengable words. I support the peaceful way to express thoughts.
ReplyDeleteKaron Tan Akias
BusAD 120 Thur. 5:10 - 7:50 pm
Although I have personal hate towards the Phelps family and their organization and their choice of venues to protest at, I do believe in the right of free speech and feel that the Federal Circuit Court's decision should be upheld. As the article stated, if we keep making acceptions to the first admendment, the integrity of the it will degrade and lose all meaning and strength. With that said, I do feel that with free speech comes the possibilities of the hindering other citizens of their free speech and pursuit of happiness, or in this case the family's grief.
ReplyDeleteWell after I read the article I can see where Phelps was just stating their opinion. I mean it is a right to freedom of speech and who am I to tell some one they cannot speak what they feel. I mean they feel homosexuality should be banned and thats their opinion. I do understand why Snyder was upset I mean if people want to express their opinion they should do so but not a funeral where parents just lost their only son. Public protest should not take place at any funeral. People dont want any more negative energy surrounding them while they are trying to deal with a death. So yes I agree with Snyder on why he was upset with the Phelps organization. I feel if the Phelps organization wanted to get their point across they could have protested somewhere else for publicity, and not at a funeral where a man gave his life for our country. I feel like using a persons death for self gain is as low as a person can go, so I hope Snyder wins this case. I feel this issue should not be protected under the first ammendment for these reasons.
ReplyDelete-Enrique Bautista
Freedom of speech is freedom. If people want to yell obscenities or protest they are going to whether it is against the law or not. The U.S. has been throwing people in jail over flag burning, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly for many years before this. Why they cant throw a couple more people ruining some poor family's funeral is beyond me. If it was my sons funeral I would have had them removed or would have got to removing them myself and they would had to throw me in jail. There are always going to be a group of individuals who want to hate and protecting freedom of speech isnt going to help. So i believe this case is a lost cause as long as there is the U.S. constitution in the way.
ReplyDeleteI am all for Freedom of Speech! But not when it is used to belittle and insult a group of people in such a public and inappropriate way! Everyone has their right of opinions but that doesnt give you a right to harm someone elses feelings. Especially if what you're protesting about is at a funeral that has nothing to do with what you're against! This is absolutely disgusting. The supreme court must not dismiss this case. i feel if they do so, it will only get worse and it will be a reaccurance with not just phelps but other radical groups.
ReplyDeletePhelps organization protesting in the loss of Snyder a fallen soldier shouldn’t be protected under the freedom of speech because the Snyder family was going through emotional distress and I believe that the Snyder’s rights are not being protected but the Phelps organization is. Judges should take realities into account when deciding a case. We need fairness and what the Snyder family is going through is not fair. Not only is the protest false, the soldier was not gay, what he was, is a hero because he gave his life to this country, this nation and our people. Regardless if someone is gay because gay will always exist, the soldier deserved his peace and final moments with his family and friends and not protesters. The Snyder family is just trying to seek relief through the court system, if they don’t should we protest at every funeral.
ReplyDelete-Abraham Moya
I believe that it is wrong for Phelps to protest during Snyder's funeral. Even though some people might say that Phelps should be protected under the freedom of speech I believe that he shouldn’t the reason being is because to start off Snyder was not gay and Phelps was just protesting to get publicity. There are other ways that Phelps could have protested, he could have gone and protested somewhere else instead he chose to protest at a funeral therefore I don’t believe that freedom of speech should protect Phelps. Funerals are sacred; nobody wants to be disturbed during a funeral. Phelps caused problems to the Snyder’s family he shouldn’t be protected because what he did hurt someone and that is not fair. What Phelps did should not be protected under the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the first amendment should not protect the hate speech. I feel that the demonstrations interupted the funeral service and took away the attention and peacefulness that was needed. The demonstrations does distrub people in different ways, causing them to be physically and emotionally ill. People should consider that even though they have freedom of speech, there is a proper place and way of expressing it. What Phelps did at Snyder's funeral was not acceptable and unforgivable.
ReplyDelete-Selina MIrzakhani
Personally, I have been one to always believe that the Freedom of Speech is only good unless it does damage unto another person's freedom. Therefore, this act of Phelps and his followers should not be protected under the right to Freedom of Speech. A saying one of my high school teachers use to have was "My will over the world stops at the tip of your nose," and I believe this is exactly what the rights should stand for. You can speak against ideas, that is very benevolent to our society as a whole, it allows for opposing ideas to compromise and therefore take the best from both sides, but when you step past that boundary of just opposing and start accusing, you have therefore limited the right of speech of somebody else.
ReplyDeleteI personally love the First Amendment, however because of its general phrasing, it gives equal protection to both good and bad speech. Everyone has a different perspective on what good and bad speech is. Phelps and his followers protesting at Sydney's funeral proves an effective way to be heard. It's simply good strategy as a advocate for a cause. They get national coverage about their views and so far they have not been accurately punished because of it. I think anyone can say whatever they wish but its common courtesy not to sully someone's memory especially at their funeral. Matthew Snyder cannot even defend himself to the assumptions being stated by Phelps and his followers. Their protest and the context in which they chose to present it in should be interpreted as hate speech. Hate speech should not be protected under the First Amendment.
ReplyDelete-Jannane Campos
This has been one of the most important issues facing SCOTUS in recent years. It stands out because depending on how it is ruled, it could have long term and extreme consequences on the nation. As much as I'm disgusted by what Phelps and his followers did, I truly feel that his actions should be protected under the First Amendment. I personally despise ALL organized religion and all anti-gay rights organizations, but my passionate hatred of these groups should be set aside in respect for equality and The Constitution. Playing the slippery slope card works almost perfectly in this instance. The First Amendment is just one of those rights that can be very easily and progressively striped from the people bit by bit. Freedom in general is not easy, it takes tolerance and respect. One of my favorite quotes of all time sums it up beautifully:
ReplyDelete"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" -Voltaire
-Andrew Movsissian
I believe that all repulsive sayings shouldn't be protected by the first amendment due to the fact of past conflicts. Over the years there have been many past conflicts like September 11 and other bombing attempts to the U.S. where freedom of speech has been questioned. For example, if you talk on the phone and talk about a bombing over the phone you can be recorded and have further action taken upon you. That is why freedom of speech is only "freedom" until a certain point now a days. In this case I believe that Phelps shouldn't be protected by the first amendment for causing emotional harm to Albert Snyder.
ReplyDeleteHate speech and freedom of speech are very different.Because freedom of speech has another definition than hate speech.Freedom of speech is mainly aout humans right and hate speech has its oposite definition.
ReplyDeleteSvetlana Hovhannisyan
in this case and all extreme hate cases, i dont believe their freedom of speech should be protected. this Baptist church not only damaged the Snyder family emotionally but for the love of whatever higher being created the universe have some respect for a fallen soldier that died protecting this country that this church is based in. America tolerates too many things its unbearable
ReplyDelete-aaron neale