I’m angry.
On my way to work this morning, a small sidebar in the daily paper I read caught my attention. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church who were appealing a case against them for protesting at funerals (military funerals in particular, but others as well) on the grounds of free speech.
The US Constitution guarantees certain rights and freedoms to those living under its rule, and was written within the ideological framework of democracy. The issue of free speech is a contentious one, and one in which my understanding and interpretation of that freedom may make me rather unpopular among those who would speak and allow others to speak in any way in the name of open, public discourse.
I’ll come right out and say it, I do not agree with the gross application of free speech we see so often in today’s court rulings. As I understand freedoms and rights they come with great responsibility on the part of those who claim to uphold them. Such responsibility requires that one considers more than just the legal consequences of sharing one’s opinions in public. A democracy is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, a place where varying viewpoints are shared and a body of people work with (NOT against) one another in order to ensure that the quality of every life is high. Debate is a part of this process, disagreement and compromises are expected, but it is also expected (perhaps more so, hoped) that these debates and disagreements will be reasoned.
Speaking reasonedly does not mean speaking free of passion, but free speech and vitriol are not the same thing.
The Constitution guarantees certain freedoms, but it also states, at the very beginning, that all people are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Here is where broad interpretations of free speech and I part ways: I know what it feels like to be harmed by another’s words, and it does not make me happy or otherwise fulfill my life and liberty. I am not claiming to be someone who never utters a harmful word against another person; I know I have, intentionally and unintentionally. But I do not want to live my life defined only by how much harm I cause. How is it a good measure of my ability to express myself if how I do that is through base comments and slurs against those who are different than me? I would rather live my life where accountability and mutuality define my relationships, so that the scope of my words however wide will always include the invitation to share in discussion. It matters to me if I harm someone, emotionally or physically. And it is possible to voice disagreement, even over hot-button topics, without being hurtful.
In contrast to the story of yesterday’s ruling, I also read this morning that fashion designer John Galliano now faces charges of spreading racial hatred after being arrested last week in a cafe in Paris. In France (the historic ‘birthplace’ of modern democracy, it is worth noting) it is illegal to spread hate speech. This is not to say that France is ‘better’ than the United States, or any other country or body politic; but I do find these two examples in great contrast when looking at examples of ir/responsible interpretations of a freedom of speech.
After reading the above article on the Supreme Court’s ruling, I offer my own dissent: public discourse IS stifled when individuals and groups speak in a way that tramples on the rights of others. I have written before on radical love, and I am aware that my ability to love in such a way is right now being tested to the core. And as much as I support peace and justice and believe in love and compassion, my righteous anger toward a situation compels me to act – through this post, through my interactions with others, through my urgent drive to love fiercely in the face of hatred and injustice.
I am angry that our highest court seemingly only understands peace as a lack of physical violence. I am angry that our want of ‘open, free public discourse’ submits to sensationalism and fear-mongering. And I pray that while I fully support dialogue and disagreement, we may one day decide that the content of our speech does matter. I pray.
Greetings, Anna. I enjoy your passion here! What makes me a little nervous is probably somewhat standard: 1) What constitutes “hate speech” and “hurt.” If my feelings are hurt, do I really have the right to sue someone else or put them in prison? Does taking a stand on controversial issues constitute “hate”?
As Christopher Hitchens and others like to point out, the purpose of free speech is to protect speech that is unpopular. Otherwise, speech isn’t free, and you lay the groundwork for totalitarianism. My understanding of free speech regulations in the U.S. is that you can say anything without being charged, with the exception of directly threatening someone with violence, or quid pro quo in the workplace, for example But this is not the same thing as the extreme rudeness of Westboro Baptist. I do not think they ought to be prosecuted. I do think they should be opposed by other free speech.
There is also often a double standard here — some people are often happy with rude or flamboyant speech to raise awareness for their own political opinions, but take offense when people on the other side employ it.
No, better to have free speech for all.
Hello Ben – thank you for your reply! I share your nervousness, completely, and certainly further discussion & further clarity are needed.
I do not support, and am not supporting, the silencing of groups or individuals who opinions are not my own. The heart of my post, I hope, is that regardless of how much I or we may disagree with any other(s), even if it is my ‘right’ by law to express myself, it is a choice in how I go about doing so. I want to encourage deep dialogue, and am unhappy with what I see as an avoidance of such dialogue by broad applications of free speech. In many ways it seems to me that the ‘all speech is free or no speech is free’ is a straw-man argument that diverts attention away from the more complex issue of ethical discourse. There is more to consider; the means to an end matter. So, the crux of this post was to speak to agency & responsibility in the public space. I purposefully did not take up the legal specifics of this case, as the article was merely a catalyst for a larger discussion on dialogue.
As to your question of distinguishing between ‘hate’ and ‘hurt feelings’, I agree this is a difficult subject to traverse. and one that is greatly subjective. But ‘hurt feelings’ are real, they are not trivial, and it requires a great amount of work to live in relationship with others – which is why accountability is so important. I want to be called out for applying a double standard, or for speaking without correct information, and I am open to learning new perspectives.
“I do not support, and am not supporting, the silencing of groups or individuals who opinions are not my own. The heart of my post, I hope, is that regardless of how much I or we may disagree with any other(s), even if it is my ‘right’ by law to express myself, it is a choice in how I go about doing so.”
It seems to me, then, that you would support the ruling but advocate for a different tone of discourse. But you seem to clearly be against the ruling in your post.
Nor is there much coherence, to my mind, in seeking to prevent the utterances of others in order to promote the sort of dialogue YOU want to have. If people want to eschew “deep dialogue” in favor of divisive rhetoric that is their right. I will stand with you in opposing their decision, but not if you seek to enforce your ideal form of dialogue through state action.
I am upset at what the ruling represents. I know that not everyone will welcome my call for dialogue and I do not seek to force anyone into conversation – its futile and contradictory.
I guess I don’t understand why. The ruling represents the proud fact that America, even when facing the most extremely divisive and disgusting forms of expression, sticks to its principles and asserts the freedom of all to be heard. I think that’s something to celebrate. If there is any cause to mourn, for me it would be in the 1 dissenting opinion.
What about the ruling upsets you?
So, I support freedom of speech (and the civic responsibility included with said freedom by those who live under such rule), while I also lament that the tone of discourse more often seen and tolerated in public is, in my view, harmful.
In which case we don’t disagree! Thank you for your clarification!
Thank you for the discussion!
I agree with Ben. The question at issue here is whether the state has the right to force someone, by force, not to put forth their views in the public square. It is worth noting that the state has frequently abused its power and worked to silence certain views: communism during the Red Scare, and atheism throughout the history of the USA (through blasphemy laws, for example). As much as I detest the WBC, I would detest the state stepping in to silence protest more.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was created at a very different time, culturally and politically. That doesn’t mean there isn’t still inherent value in those written words, which our laws are based upon; however, the idea is that a certain degree of interpretation enables the document to be applicable today.
Protesting at a funeral is simply ludicrous, and not only unpopular, but aggressive. There is a difference between protecting speech that is unpopular and that which is VIOLENT.
Language and both its superficial and deeper symbolic meaning hold a tremendous amount of power. For instance, I assert that racist, sexist, and homophobic language IS violent. I think that we should hold ourselves responsible for challenging the institutions and ideologies that perpetuate violent language. But then again, my opinion might be…. well, unpopular. Now THAT’S freedom of speech, for all of you to contemplate! 🙂
Thanks for sharing, Anna!
“I think that we should hold ourselves responsible for challenging the institutions and ideologies that perpetuate violent language.”
That is not the question here. the question is whether the state should PREVENT THE EXPRESSION of such “violent language”. I believe it should not. I am now not certain, after her latest reply, what Anna thinks. How about you?
I disagree. I don’t think that the question is whether the state should prevent the expression of such violent language. I think the point here is that the Supreme Court, which is made up of INDIVIDUALS, seemingly made a ruling based on the face value of the First Amendment. Freedom of all speech vs. no freedom of speech? That’s a black and white perspective and approach that reeks of inefficacy in the context of our highest court (a group of PERSONS, not merely an institution) making rulings, no?