Recently a case has gone to court because a man by the name of Albert Snyder is sueing a group led by Reverend Fred Phelps for "invasion of privacy, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress," due to the fact that picketers from Kansas waved insensitive signs at his son's funeral, who had died as a U.S. marine in Iraq. The small group of followers from the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka believes that the 9/11 attack and soldiers dying are God's way of punishing the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality. They claim they're waving their distasteful signs around to draw attention to their cause. How does this attract public support? I couldn't tell you.
At first Snyder was awarded $10 million later dropped to $5 million before a federal appeals court ruled that "notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words," our freedom of speech protects the Westboro group's right to protest and say whatever they want. However, this freedom can reach a level of harrassment, leaving the court to decide on an acceptable buffer zone to allow families to grieve, and protesters to protest. Allowing Snyder's lawsuit would have been dangerous, and raised quite a few questions. Should women seeking an abortion win damages for emotional distress from anti-abortion protestors outside of an abortion clinic at a distance required by law? I don't think so.
As long as adjustments are made to prevent harrassment, then the courts are obligated to protect our freedoms. Most don't agree with how the Westboro group went about getting their point across, but the fact is it was NOT illegal, only inconsiderate. In conclusion, the first amendment protects protests at military funerals, just from a distance.
No comments:
Post a Comment