Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Free speech rights

Rate this topic


Altan

Recommended Posts

I'm posting this topic in response to the following news article:

(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a legal battle that pits the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators.

In 2006, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested 300 feet from a funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Among the teachings of the Topeka, Kansas-based fundamentalist church founded by pastor Fred Phelps is the belief that the deaths of U.S. soldiers is God's punishment for "the sin of homosexuality."

Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, said his son was not gay and the protesters should not have been at the funeral.

"I was just shocked that any individual could do this to another human being," Snyder told CNN. "I mean, it was inhuman."

Snyder's family sued the church in 2007, alleging invasion of privacy, international infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were later reduced to $5 million.

The church appealed the case in 2008 to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's allegations that its First Amendment rights were violated.

In a legal brief filed with the Supreme Court, church members claim it is their right to protest at certain events, including funerals, to promote their religious message: "That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not obey him."

Church members have participated in hundreds of other protests across the country. They also picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepherd, the victim of an anti-gay beating and one of those whom the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was named.

The justices will be asked to look at how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.

The Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the matter for several months.

Source

Do you think that these lunatics from the Westboro Baptist Church have every right to display such 'protests' or demonstrations close to a funeral ceremony?

I personally think that they shouldn't be allowed, since every family in such a situation should be able to have a peaceful (assuming they want it that way) funeral free of such disturbance, but from another view it is their right after all, 'free speech' and all. So I'm undecided.

Then again aren't such grave yard sites private property? Does anyone know who 'owns' grave yards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm posting this topic in response to the following news article:

Source

Do you think that these lunatics from the Westboro Baptist Church have every right to display such 'protests' or demonstrations close to a funeral ceremony?

I personally think that they shouldn't be allowed, since every family in such a situation should be able to have a peaceful (assuming they want it that way) funeral free of such disturbance, but from another view it is their right after all, 'free speech' and all. So I'm undecided.

Then again aren't such grave yard sites private property? Does anyone know who 'owns' grave yards?

They aren't trespassing on private property, they're only demonstrating on 'publicly owned land'. And yes, they have the right to do so, their actions don't violate anyone's property rights. (those charges listed in the previous ruling are all abusive, there is no right to not get your feelings hurt)

Obviously, in a fully free society, they would have fewer opportunities to stage these protests, since there would be a lot less 'publicly owned land', and it's unlikely that many private road or land owners would allow them to get close to these funerals. But, on the rare occasion that they could get it done with the permission of nearby property owners, there would still be nothing the families could do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may find this previous thread on the topic of "private property and freedom of speech" helpful:Phelps at the Funeral

If the funeral is held on private property, Phelps and his legion can carry on with their agenda outside the private property,

on public grounds, acting in accordance with both private property and freedom of speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem force is being applied here though. There are standards of behavior that are applicable that don't infringe on freedom of speech.

On to the issue of private property.

People do not have a right to create a noise nuisance as part of their "freedom of speech". Remember that freedom of speech is not the same as a right to be heard.

If I am in my (private) home and someone stands on the (public) sidewalk in front of my home creating a nuisance I am in the right to call the police and the police would be right to make the nusiance end and issue a ticket.

The person creating the nuisance is initiating force.

Same case here. The soldier's family is on private property peacefully conducting private business. The protesters are standing just outside the private property willfully violating the family's right to use the property for its intended purpose.

I would say that standing outside quietly holding their disgusting and evil minded signs would be within their rights.

Because they choose to be loud and obnoxious they are initiating force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem force is being applied here though. There are standards of behavior that are applicable that don't infringe on freedom of speech.

On to the issue of private property.

People do not have a right to create a noise nuisance as part of their "freedom of speech". Remember that freedom of speech is not the same as a right to be heard.

If I am in my (private) home and someone stands on the (public) sidewalk in front of my home creating a nuisance I am in the right to call the police and the police would be right to make the nusiance end and issue a ticket.

The person creating the nuisance is initiating force.

Same case here. The soldier's family is on private property peacefully conducting private business. The protesters are standing just outside the private property willfully violating the family's right to use the property for its intended purpose.

I would say that standing outside quietly holding their disgusting and evil minded signs would be within their rights.

Because they choose to be loud and obnoxious they are initiating force.

They aren't being accused of noise pollution. I'm sure if there was a reasonable attempt on the part of the local authorities to enforce local laws regarding noise levels, the Church would have agreed to keep the noise down to whatever levels are considered acceptable in the areas they protest in. They have an excellent track record of obeying all laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was just on CNN. The commentator made the comment that this was pure harassment, which IS a crime. nothing to do with freedome of speech. Anyone harassing someone on public property can and should be held responsible.

There aren't any anti-harassment laws per se in the US (because of the ambiguity of the word), but there are various laws covering types of harassment. There are laws against issuing threats, stalking, sexual harassment in the workplace, etc. The UK does of course have anti harassment laws, because it doesn't concern itself with protecting freedom of speech much. Indeed, the legislation has been mostly used against peaceful protesters.

Back to our American lunatics, they weren't charged with any crimes against forms of harassment, because all those crimes are well defined and have well established precedent on the conditions under which they are prosecuted. You're not going to be able to use them to get a professional lawyer who is doing her best to obey the law, to break them.

What you need is exactly what these people used: ambiguous accusations in a civil shakedown, which can be used against anyone expressing unpopular opinions, just enough to convince a clueless group of jurors. That is why the appellate court dismissed the case, and that is why the Supreme Court will dismiss it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free speech rights So where do you draw the line?

The point where you draw the line is force. Did the speech cross the point where it becomes an initiation of force (like yelling fire in a crowded theater). As despicable as these people are they are harmless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point where you draw the line is force. Did the speech cross the point where it becomes an initiation of force (like yelling fire in a crowded theater). As despicable as these people are they are harmless.
I agree, but that does not actually answer the question if it is posed in an Objectivist context. . An Objectivist asking "where do draw the line" on free speech is asking "where and how do you draw the line, across which some speech is classified as force?" Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Ayn rand said, at the root of any unresolvable conflict you will find that someone's rights are being violated.

This is such a conflict. Public property in its self is already a violation of rights. As long as public property exists you cannot possibly resolve this conflict objectively. There is no possible way to validate either parties claims based on the objective principle of initiation of force. Force has already been initiated through the existence of public property before this situation even arose. The only way to solve this problem is to get rid of the original initiation of force, which means getting rid of public property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More explicitly put to this case, "Is harassment force?" and "Are these protesters harassing the funeral participants?"

OK...

What does the word mean?

Harassment –verb (used with object)

1.

to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

2.

to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.

So by definition a single instance of torment, or bother or pestering does not constitute harassment. I will admit that at some point harassment does become force but at what point? How can it be objectively determined what is and what is not harassment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK...

What does the word mean?

Harassment –verb (used with object)

1.

to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

2.

to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.

So by definition a single instance of torment, or bother or pestering does not constitute harassment. I will admit that at some point harassment does become force but at what point? How can it be objectively determined what is and what is not harassment?

I don't think there is a need to answer that question, to resolve this issue. All we need to determine is what isn't harassment: standing on a sidewalk with signs and chanting slogans, to protest something. That is something being done across America, thousands of times a year.

Just to make it very clear what we're talking about, here's a picture of "Friends" stars Lisa Kudrow and Mathew Perry doing it, during the LA writers' strike a few years ago, on public property outside one of the studios:

Hollywood-writers-strike.jpg

Does that constitute harassment? (keep in mind that I am deeply offended by the stupid expression on his face)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by definition a single instance of torment, or bother or pestering does not constitute harassment.

In this case in particular it went beyond a single incident. The church singled out the Snyders for further abuse publishing and posting poems about the family using their names.

While freedom of speech allows protest of things deemed to be of public interest .. say war, gay issues, religious issues & so on what the point seems to be here is singling out private citizens for harassment to further your agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single instance may not constitute harassment - and an argument can be made that each funeral targeted by these loons is, indeed, only a single instance.

But when the loons target funeral after funeral after funeral, while there is only one victim in each case, is it still only a single instance? Or do we look at the repeated actions of this group against a variety of victims as persistently disturbing/tormenting?

The definition of harass presented here doesn't specify a single target - and I think it is proper not to be so explicit.

We've got a recurring pattern of a group of whackos going around the country deliberately trying to cause pain to others. The victims vary, but the pattern constitutes harassment nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SA makes another good point - the First Amendment is about Government not limiting your right to speak out *against the Government* primarily, but in general not limiting your right to speak out. The 1st should not be a justification to allow a group to create a bully pulpit to disturb other private citizens who aren't interested in what you have to say.

The First Amendment grants each of us the right to express ourselves, not the right to force other people to listen to our bitching.

Edited by Greebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also good to note that "fighting words" have never been given first amendment protection.

From US Legal website:

"Fighting words are words intentionally directed toward another person which are so venomous and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer emotional distress or incite him/her to retaliate physically. Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don't constitute an assault.

The utterance of fighting words is not protected by the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words are often evaluated not only by the words themselves, but the context in which they are spoken. Courts generally impose a requirement that the speaker intended to cause a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case in particular it went beyond a single incident. The church singled out the Snyders for further abuse publishing and posting poems about the family using their names.

While freedom of speech allows protest of things deemed to be of public interest .. say war, gay issues, religious issues & so on what the point seems to be here is singling out private citizens for harassment to further your agendas.

There is no provision I'm aware of with regard to freedom of speech that says things of "public interest" are subject to and fair game for free speech but individuals are not. The freedom of speech is just as applicable to the racist jackass down the street as it is to any multitude of assembled people, no matter what ilk they belong to.

If the case was made for harassment by the Snyders I'd be the first to wish them well, but as far as I know they made this issue about free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the case was made for harassment by the Snyders I'd be the first to wish them well, but as far as I know they made this issue about free speech.

There were multiple allegations in the lawsuit amongst them was "intentional infliction of emotional distress" which would usually fall under the "fighting words" standards posted above.

Remember that the right to something does not necessarily mean the freedom to do just anything with that right. I have the right to have a gun but I am not allowed to do just anything with it.

I have a right to use of my property, but not in a manner that can cause harm to others.

I have the right to hate homosexuals (I don't, just an example) but I don't have the right to follow a homosexual down the street screaming obscenities at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no provision I'm aware of with regard to freedom of speech that says things of "public interest" are subject to and fair game for free speech but individuals are not.

That comes up because of legal precedent. It is part of Phelp's defense.

Phelps: "the court has never allowed a speaker to be held liable for remarks on a topic of public interest " (source, AP article, emphasis mine)

That's what's at issue here. Freedom of speech is guaranteed absolutely in political matters, but not always in personal matters. Short of making threats I have the right to say anything about the government. What I say about my neighbor is sometimes a different matter- there's slander, libel, "fighting words", incitement, harassment and so on.

Phelps feels they are protesting the government.

The family feels that as their names, likenesses and personal grief was used that it is not protected protest but invasion of privacy and harassment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is guaranteed absolutely in political matters, but not always in personal matters.

That's not true. The US Constitution guarantees all speech exactly the same way, no matter what its subject:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (USC, First Amendment)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. The US Constitution guarantees all speech exactly the same way, no matter what its subject:

No. It doesn't.

Back to the old "yelling fire in crowded theatre" thing.

It is speech.

It is not protected.

Therefore all speech is not guaranteed exactly the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free speech, like free trade and free immigration should not refer to any kind of speech involving the initiation of force. We don't say “free trade should be limited because you can't steal” or “free immigration should be limited because you can't trespass,” etc. We should not say “free speech should be limited because you can't make threats!” So using the “yelling in a crowded theater” example as some kind of limitation on free speech isn't really valid. And it's not like the government will arrest you for yelling in a theater. The old example was supposed to be yelling “fire!” falsely and causing someone to get hurt in the panic and disrupting the paid performance. It is not a limitation on free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...