During my research of how other countries deal with speech and regulating speech, I came across this case from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Mr. Norwood, a member of Parliament ironically, posted a sign in a window of his home with a picture of the twin towers burning with the words "Islam out of Britain - Protect the British People" along with a symbol of a crescent and star in a prohibition sign. A member of the public complained about the large poster in the window of Mr. Norwood's first floor flat and police removed it. Mr. Norwood was invited to go to the local police station for an interview after the removal but refused.
Mr. Norwood was then charged with "an aggravated offense under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, of displaying, with hostility towards a racial or religious group, any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by it."
Norwood then applied to the ECHR under Article 10 of the Convention (it doesn't say which convention specifically) claiming that the criminal proceedings against him violated his right to freedom of expression and under Article 14 claiming discrimination. In the end, the ECHR found that Norwood's rights were not violated and declared his application inadmissible.
Part of me agrees with section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and the speech regulations it imposes. Having lived in the United Kingdom both as a child and an adult, there is something to be said about how Brits handle themselves and what they will and will not tolerate. In fact when Westboro tried to bring their protests to Britain, they were banned from doing so under English law; Great Britain was not going to tolerate such blatant hateful rubbish on their soil. Yet the American in me is leery of such speech regulation because it requires the government and the courts to be fair and unbiased in it's application, something I don't trust either to do evenhandedly.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The "Epic" - Part of "the record as a whole" or not?
The Supreme Court specifically states that it will not take into account the contents of the "Epic", the rant on Westboro's webpage attacking the Snyder family, despite the jury and the courts below discussing it in their decisions because the petitioner did not mention it in his writ for certiorari. Therefore, "[t]he epic is not properly before us and does not factor into our analysis." FN1
While the petitioner's brief may have only addressed claims dealing with the picketing, throwing out any claims to do with the online rant against the Snyders, should the epic have been thrown completely out of the record and not even viewed as evidence as to the specific intent of the church to prey on private citizens' pain and suffering as opposed to speech protected as matter of public interest? Rather should the Court have taken the epic as part of the record as a whole when determining whether the picketing near Snyder's funeral was a "subject of legitimate news interest, that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public," or a personal attack on private citizens?
Here are some of the contents of the epic as cited in Alito's dissent. I find it difficult to contemplate this lovely tidbit not being a part of the record that the Court claims it looked at as a whole.
“God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver! In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD-PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE-you raised him for the devil.
While the petitioner's brief may have only addressed claims dealing with the picketing, throwing out any claims to do with the online rant against the Snyders, should the epic have been thrown completely out of the record and not even viewed as evidence as to the specific intent of the church to prey on private citizens' pain and suffering as opposed to speech protected as matter of public interest? Rather should the Court have taken the epic as part of the record as a whole when determining whether the picketing near Snyder's funeral was a "subject of legitimate news interest, that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public," or a personal attack on private citizens?
Here are some of the contents of the epic as cited in Alito's dissent. I find it difficult to contemplate this lovely tidbit not being a part of the record that the Court claims it looked at as a whole.
“God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver! In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD-PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE-you raised him for the devil.
“Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery. They taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity. Every dime they gave the Roman Catholic monster they condemned their own souls. They also, in supporting satanic Catholicism, taught Matthew to be an idolater.
“Then after all that they sent him to fight for the United States of Sodom, a filthy country that is in lock step with his evil, wicked, and sinful manner of life, putting him in the cross hairs of a God that is so mad He has smoke coming from his nostrils and fire from his mouth! How dumb was that?”
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Snyder v. Phelps - Which Justice(s) Got It Right?
I'm not going to lie, I felt kind of cool printing out the recent Supreme Court decision a mere two days after it was decided. I felt like I was on the cutting edge of a deeper understanding of the 1st Amendment and protected speech. I compare it to reading the new Harry Potter book as soon as it comes out or getting the U2 album I pre-ordered on iTunes nine hours before it's available to everyone else. (By the way, I have never read Harry Potter but I have pre-ordered a U2 album, among others, on iTunes.)
Justice Roberts' decision is not long, even with Justice Breyers' concurrence and Justice Alito's dissent. Roberts' sticks tightly to the issues in front of the court, openly declaring that Westboro's personal, vengeful message on their website directed at Matthew Snyder's parents, who they specifically mention by name in the posting referred to as "The Epic", was not brought to their attention in the petitioner's petition for certiorari. While the Court contends that the record would need to be looked at in the whole to decide whether or not Snyder has a claim for IIED that Westboro would not be able to use the 1st Amendment as a defense for, this piece of evidence is seen as a separate claim and not part of the record as a whole when judging Westboro's actions. I am not sure whether to be frustrated with the court for basically omitting evidence from the record or whether to be frustrated with Snyder's attorney who addressed the actions of the picketing in the petition and did not tie "The Epic" so closely into the evidence of IIED that it was so easy for the Court to ignore when viewing the record as a whole.
There is also a debate about where speech issues of public concern cross the line into a person's private life. While a funeral can be open to the public, allowing those who knew and loved the deceased to pay their final respects, a funeral remains a very private event for those closest to the deceased. The shock of losing a child, parent, sibling, spouse, or close friend provides a form of insulation that can lend itself to feeling very alone in the middle of a church filled with mourners. While the protestors were not yelling, were 1,000 feet away from the church on public land adjacent to a public street proclaiming what they believe are issues of public interest I cannot help but side with Alito in his dissent; this was not a matter of public interest but rather a specific attack on a private person. Westboro doesn't just show up at random soldier's funerals; they issue a press release in advance stating which individual's funeral they plan to protest and why to gain publicity and media attention. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was chosen after Phelps heard about his funeral because Snyder was a soldier and a Catholic, both reasons according to Westboro why "God Hates America." As Alito points out in his dissent, the protestors could have gone anywhere along any of the over 4,000,000 miles of public streets in the U.S., on any day to utilize their 1st Amendment rights to address what they deem is a matter of "public interest", that the U.S. is overly tolerant of homosexuality which is why God is killing soldiers. They specifically target this funeral and found a loophole in the local law to stage their attack on the Snyder family during this private and emotional time in their lives, the burial of their son, in order to inflict emotional distress. It was not out of respect for the Snyder family that the group contact local law enforcement to make sure they did not encroach on their son's funeral; it was a calculated move on their part to disguise their rhetoric and hate speech as a First Amendment right to cause Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on the Snyder family personally, and the Supreme Court fell right into their trap.
Justice Roberts' decision is not long, even with Justice Breyers' concurrence and Justice Alito's dissent. Roberts' sticks tightly to the issues in front of the court, openly declaring that Westboro's personal, vengeful message on their website directed at Matthew Snyder's parents, who they specifically mention by name in the posting referred to as "The Epic", was not brought to their attention in the petitioner's petition for certiorari. While the Court contends that the record would need to be looked at in the whole to decide whether or not Snyder has a claim for IIED that Westboro would not be able to use the 1st Amendment as a defense for, this piece of evidence is seen as a separate claim and not part of the record as a whole when judging Westboro's actions. I am not sure whether to be frustrated with the court for basically omitting evidence from the record or whether to be frustrated with Snyder's attorney who addressed the actions of the picketing in the petition and did not tie "The Epic" so closely into the evidence of IIED that it was so easy for the Court to ignore when viewing the record as a whole.
There is also a debate about where speech issues of public concern cross the line into a person's private life. While a funeral can be open to the public, allowing those who knew and loved the deceased to pay their final respects, a funeral remains a very private event for those closest to the deceased. The shock of losing a child, parent, sibling, spouse, or close friend provides a form of insulation that can lend itself to feeling very alone in the middle of a church filled with mourners. While the protestors were not yelling, were 1,000 feet away from the church on public land adjacent to a public street proclaiming what they believe are issues of public interest I cannot help but side with Alito in his dissent; this was not a matter of public interest but rather a specific attack on a private person. Westboro doesn't just show up at random soldier's funerals; they issue a press release in advance stating which individual's funeral they plan to protest and why to gain publicity and media attention. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was chosen after Phelps heard about his funeral because Snyder was a soldier and a Catholic, both reasons according to Westboro why "God Hates America." As Alito points out in his dissent, the protestors could have gone anywhere along any of the over 4,000,000 miles of public streets in the U.S., on any day to utilize their 1st Amendment rights to address what they deem is a matter of "public interest", that the U.S. is overly tolerant of homosexuality which is why God is killing soldiers. They specifically target this funeral and found a loophole in the local law to stage their attack on the Snyder family during this private and emotional time in their lives, the burial of their son, in order to inflict emotional distress. It was not out of respect for the Snyder family that the group contact local law enforcement to make sure they did not encroach on their son's funeral; it was a calculated move on their part to disguise their rhetoric and hate speech as a First Amendment right to cause Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on the Snyder family personally, and the Supreme Court fell right into their trap.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Thank You Westboro?
Today's SCOTUS 8-1 decision that the Westboro Baptist Church is protected by the 1st Amendment first struck me as abhorrent. Then I started thinking outside the box. If the bench can communicate to each other when they question counsel during hearings as well as communicate with the Legislature that they need Congress to legislate an issue and not leave it up to the Court to legislate, perhaps the Court is sending the American people a message with today's decision. Here's what I think the court is telling us:
"Listen America, if we rule against Westboro that what they are doing is not protected under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, we could possibly open up a pandora's box allowing the Court and Congress to begin regulating your rights just because someone doesn't like what you're saying or how you're saying it and we're not willing to go there. So here's the deal: we're going to protect their speech even though the majority of people find it to be hateful and downright wrong to the point of offensive because by doing so we're protecting your speech too. We've given you some fairly broad perimeters to work with to deal with this social boil on the butt of humanity in your own way using your own rights to say what you want and peaceably assemble. We believe in the American people's compassion and integrity to come together and put a stop to this madness using the same avenue being used to spew such hate in the first place. If we're willing to protect their speech regardless of whether or not we or the American people like it, think about what speech of your's we're willing to stand up for in your efforts to put an end to this. Look to groups like the Freedom Angels who rally around soldier's funerals to protect the families from more pain. Look to those who surrounded little Christina Green's funeral wearing angel wings so that no one at the funeral had to see such blind hatred toward their little one. Look to the Facebook groups who catch wind of possible places/events where Westboro may show up and organize a counter protest. You have the power to do this and by ruling for Westboro, as morally wrong as it may seem, we've actually given you even more tools at your disposal to literally stand up and say "As the American people, we will no longer tolerate this behavior.""
(I realize the words "social boil on the butt of humanity" are virtually impossible to imagine ever escaping the mouth of Ginsburg, however it's pretty funny to think of her throwing down like that.)
So that's it America. It's up to us and believe it or not, I think the Supreme Court has got our back.
"Listen America, if we rule against Westboro that what they are doing is not protected under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, we could possibly open up a pandora's box allowing the Court and Congress to begin regulating your rights just because someone doesn't like what you're saying or how you're saying it and we're not willing to go there. So here's the deal: we're going to protect their speech even though the majority of people find it to be hateful and downright wrong to the point of offensive because by doing so we're protecting your speech too. We've given you some fairly broad perimeters to work with to deal with this social boil on the butt of humanity in your own way using your own rights to say what you want and peaceably assemble. We believe in the American people's compassion and integrity to come together and put a stop to this madness using the same avenue being used to spew such hate in the first place. If we're willing to protect their speech regardless of whether or not we or the American people like it, think about what speech of your's we're willing to stand up for in your efforts to put an end to this. Look to groups like the Freedom Angels who rally around soldier's funerals to protect the families from more pain. Look to those who surrounded little Christina Green's funeral wearing angel wings so that no one at the funeral had to see such blind hatred toward their little one. Look to the Facebook groups who catch wind of possible places/events where Westboro may show up and organize a counter protest. You have the power to do this and by ruling for Westboro, as morally wrong as it may seem, we've actually given you even more tools at your disposal to literally stand up and say "As the American people, we will no longer tolerate this behavior.""
(I realize the words "social boil on the butt of humanity" are virtually impossible to imagine ever escaping the mouth of Ginsburg, however it's pretty funny to think of her throwing down like that.)
So that's it America. It's up to us and believe it or not, I think the Supreme Court has got our back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)