Free Speech Values
By Joseph Varney
One of the most important aspects of American society is the ability to speak one's opinion without retribution. In March, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the Westboro Baptist Church has a Constitutional right to protest at military funerals. The vulgar and reprehensible statements, such as "God hates fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" (to name a few) are certainly offensive. Even more so, given the fact that our brave men and women have died serving our country.
Not surprisingly, the church has been attacked by politicians of both political parties and by the families of military personnel. They contend that the church does not have the right to protest because they inflict "emotional distress." Nobody doubts that this is the case, but "emotional distress" is simply not enough of a reason to rescind someone's right to speak freely, no matter how vulgar that person may be. Chief Justice Roberts, in an eloquent and forceful opinion stated, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain." The Chief Justice went on to state, "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." In addition, the Supreme Court found that the church was following local ordinances including sound levels, keeping an appropriate distance and being non-violent.
The Supreme Court has a long and dignified history of protecting free speech, including vile organizations such as neo-Nazis and the KKK. I think those organizations and their members are some of the most sick, despicable and awful individuals one can encounter. Yet, just because I am offended by what they say does not give me the right to sue them for "emotional distress" and five million dollars. I cannot stifle another person's right to speech, no matter how offended I may be.
Let us contrast that with some occurences in Canada. In 2008, a Canadian magazine published an editorial stating that Islam is a threat to western values. This violates Canadian law and the magazine should be required to compensate Muslims for "injuring their dignity, feelings and self-respect." In another instance, the actress Brigitte Bardot was fined the equivalent of $23,000 for "provoking racial hatred" by merely "criticizing a Muslim ceremony." Nobody is arguing that their dignity and feelings were not hurt, but simply offending a certain group is not a basis, morally, for suppressing that very speech.
Professor Frederick Schauer, a dignified expert on free speech at Harvard, stated to the New York Times that "in the United States, all such speech remains constitutionally protected." He was referring to the fact that in the "developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril." He went on to state that displaying "Nazi regalia and other trappings of ethnic hatred" can bring about significant legal risk.
One would expect freedom of speech to be stifled in dictatorships in the Middle East or China, but not in first-world nations, which have an otherwise long history of supporting individual rights.
As Americans, we should be proud that we hold free speech in a much higher regard than some of our allies.
Muslims, Jews, homosexuals, military personnel and this author are all allowed to be offended under American law. As Americans, we must never forget that our respect for freedom of speech is what makes this country truly one of a kind.
Joseph Varney is a senior political science major.