Shortly after their appearance at this funeral, the Westboro Baptist Church, who believe that the Christian god of the Holy Bible is killing American soldiers to punish the US for tolerating homosexuality, repeated their offensive anti-gay protest with the same colourful pickets at the funeral service of Matthew Snyder, also a US Marine who had been killed whilst serving his country in Iraq. This time, the outraged dead man's father decided to take legal action. Initially, the district court of Maryland found in favour of Albert Snyder and in 2008 awarded damages against Phelps and his church in excess of US 10 million dollars, although this was reduced to 5 million on appeal to the same court (Snyder v. Phelps, 2011). However, Phelps subsequently appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, which decided on First Amendment grounds guaranteeing free speech to American citizens that Phelps's protest was protected by the Constitution of the United States, and all damages against him and his church were therefore annulled.
This led Snyder to appeal the case to the US Supreme Court, who heard arguments in 2010 and gave their decision on March 11 this year in favour of the Court of Appeals and Phelps (Snyder v. Phelps, 2011). As Chief Justice Roberts makes clear in writing the opinion of the 8 - 1 majority decision, they decided it on the free speech protection provisions of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which says that "Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech". With only a single opposing vote, the Supreme Court of the US is unusually unified in its belief that the free speech of American citizens is very strongly protected under and by US law, probably far more so than for any other nation.
The same Supreme Court, although not the same justices, had also consistently struck down popular state laws that ban the burning or other desecration of the US flag (Texas v. Johnson, 1989), again, on First Amendment free speech grounds. Interestingly, in the opinion of the bare majority, Justice Brennan notes that someone who through laziness or indifference treated the US flag in way that he knew would cause offence with "no thought of expressing any idea" might be subject to prosecution without First Amendment protection (Part II, note 3). In response to this decision, there have been repeated attempts by the federal government to amend the US Constitution to explicitly exempt flag desecration from free speech protection under the First Amendment, the most nearly successful to date being George Bush's attempt in 2006, where the amendment stating that "the Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States" was passed by the House of Representatives and almost passed in the Senate (Hulse & Holusha, 2006).
The rest of the world, including most democracies, stand in marked contrast to the United States with its robust Constitution. Germany, for example, is very different even in its respect for academic freedom of speech. In 2007, the Holocaust denying Ernst Zuendel was given a 5 year jail sentence by a German court for peacefully expressing his opinion that entailed "denying that the Nazis killed six million Jews during World War II" (Jail for German, 2007, ¶ 2). More famously, and controversially, British historian David Irving was arrested in Austria, which closely follows its more powerful neighbour, and sentenced "to three years in prison for denying Nazi genocide" (Suellentrop, 2007, ¶ 1). A couple of months later, in April, the European Union (EU) passed legislation that provides jail terms for such speech in all EU member countries, albeit with the proviso that each nation's domestic laws take precedence over the EU law, which would also outlaw speech offensive to religion, such as the cartoons caricaturing Islam and Mohammed which were published in Denmark under the free speech protections of that nation's legal code.
As the violent or repressive legal and illegal reactions and responses to many peaceful expressions of honestly held belief show, symbols and beliefs that might seem trivial or to be mere superstition are also things that people will die for, as Quest 3 reminds us in "Symbolic Systems and Meanings" (Hartmann & Blass, 2007, p. 16), and in many cases kill for; far more people in the US and elsewhere are certainly convinced that it is right and necessary to suppress free and open speech concerning such beliefs and symbols.
__________
References
Alvarez, L. (2006, April 17). Outrage at funeral protests pushes lawmakers to act. The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17picket.html?emc=eta1
Bilefsky, D. (2007, April 19). EU adopts measure outlawing Holocaust denial. The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/world/europe/19iht-eu.4.5359640.html
Hartmann, P. & Blass, L. (2007). Quest 3 Reading and Writing, (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hulse, C. & Holusha, J. (2006, June 27). Amendment on flag burning fails by one vote in Senate. The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/washington/27cnd-flag.html
Jail for German Holocaust denier. (2007, February 15). BBC News. Retrieved June 10 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6364951.stm
Mill, J. (2002). The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill. New York: Modern Library.
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011). Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
Suellentrop, C. (2006, February 22). Free David Irving. The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/free-david-irving/
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZO.html
Zeller, T. (2007, February 15). Holocaust Denial — Crime or Free Speech? The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/holocaust-denial-crime-or-free-speech/
The freedom of speech should definitely be protected but actually only to a certain level. It is true that citizens' rights must be protected by the state and that the authority must enact no law which violates those rights. However, expressing offensive opinions is another story completely. Even though it might not directly violate other people's right, it is unnecessary and unfair for a government to protect people who are intentionally trying to disturb and upset other people. These offensive opinions are not doing the society any good. It should be illegal. I disagree with the US supreme court decision on the Snyder v. Phelps case. I think the freedom of speech in the US, judging from this verdict, is overrated. The court interpreted the "Freedom of Speech" way too far.
ReplyDeleteThe laws of a state is not only about morality, it must also concerns the state's peacefulness. We need rules in order to keep things running the way they're supposed to. Burning down flags is also another thing that should be banned. My reason is simple, said action does nothing but offense people. People in civilized world have some other peaceful ways to express their disagreements or disappointments. So, I also disagree with the US laws. It would do less harm to just ban flag burning and other desecration. And by not banning it, I couldn't see an advantage of allowing people to stomp their feet on a flag.
Roong,
ReplyDeleteThat sounds very utilitarian, so Mill would disagree with you.
In their 8 - 1 opinion (It wasn't one of the controversially close ones, like Kelo v. New London (1973). It was controversially (?) near unanimous like the supremely controversial Roe v. Wade (1973).) the Supreme Court does address your opposing argument that "said action does nothing but offense people", and in the note 3 that I referred to, as part of his narration of the legal history of the case in sect. II, Brennan makes an interesting observation that would agree with your opposing argument.
The Supreme Court does allow some limitations on free speech. It does not, for example, strike down laws that criminalise such acts as shouting "Fire" in a crowded cinema, and also allows legal sanctions against "fighting words".
Much as I admire them, I do nonetheless agree with you that the Supreme Court sometimes makes mistakes. In fact, I disagree with one of the three opinions that I cite in my essay on what we should read in class, but Texas v. Johnson is not the one.
Before we can talk about right or wrong, I think in this case, we should discuss first, on which ground is the decisions of US supreme court based. Considering this case separately on the ground of common sense, I definitely agree with Roong that the decision sounds absurd. We should not allow people to make such offensive or provocative remarks like that.
ReplyDeleteHowever, on the legal or political perspectives which are so alien to me, I don't know if the decision was the opposite, would there be any repercussions to any other cases that would follow. America 's main tenet is freedom. The supreme court might need to be a bit very conservative in this respect to set an example for the coming cases.
Therefore, what I can say is just that I do not think that the decisions are wrong, because I find that there is a point in their decision.
I also agree with P'Liu that it might depends on a society standard which, in this case, is the blissful freedom of the American way. On the other hand, the public can discuss and judge freely by itself as well, as we can see from a very small size of group's supporters.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think the judges had done no wrong in this case because they followed the US constitution.
Although I don't like Mill's attitude and his behavior, I think we can said that Mill is guilty only if we asked the God that is he the one who punished them or not?