The Westboro Baptist Church is a controversial church known for its infamous protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers and for their outspoken opinions about homosexuals, among other minority groups. Although they do not place physical harm upon others, they verbalize their strong opinions through signs, their online presence, and defamation of the American people, who they claim are doomed to hell (unless, of course, they are a member of the Westboro church). The WBC is lead by Fred Phelps, who founded the organization in 1955.
The WBC has been taken to court several times for their offensive protests. For instance, a 2006 law was passed that makes it a felony to protest within 500 feet of a funeral in response to the WBC pickets. Additionally, the WBC was sued by a dead soldier’s family in 2006 because they picketed his funeral. The court ruled in the WBC’s favor, stating that they were exercising free speech rights that are protected by law. In recent news, the group was featured in the 2009 film Bruno, and was counter-protested when they picketed outside of the Twitter headquarters last week.
Often defined as a hate group, the WBC claims that they are spreading God’s word, and they are doing a good deed by warning people that they will go to hell if they continue their “sinful” ways. The WBC spreads their message with extremely offensive signs, using language that is lewd and insulting. According to Zechariah Chafee, a philosopher who supports free speech that supports self-governance and democracy, this speech would be “worthless speech”. It does not promote social interest, and additionally, it can be argued that the speech is in the individual interest of the WBC. They are a group that continually offends society, and they refuse to understand the interests of other people or groups who are unlike them.
Although I like Chafee’s supposed outlook on the WBC, there are other philosophers who would support the WBC’s speech, for example, John Stuart Mill. Mill would ask if the WBC is harming anyone, and if so, is the harm legitimate or illegitimate. Mill states in his harm principle that the only purpose of prohibiting free speech against someone’s will is to “prevent harm to others.” Harm is an action that invades the rights of another person. Although the WBC is not inflicting physical harm on anyone, they are causing emotional distress that I believe has the potential to be harmful. They are insulting both major and minority groups by continually attacking their beliefs and values.
It seems as if the WBC is not violating Mill’s harm principle to a legitimate degree, but they are definitely violating both the offense theory and the respect theory. Joel Feinberg’s offense theory is based on the idea that the harm principle sets the bar too high, and some forms of highly offensive expression should still be prohibited even if they don’t violate the harm principle. Due to it’s “worthless” (lewd, obscene, slanderous, fighting words) nature, the WBC should not be allowed to continue their behavior under the offense principle. According to the offense principle and its relation to hate speech, Feinberg would say that the WBC’s hateful messages are no longer avoidable by the general public, and currently offend a large number of people. He would however, allow them to meet in private, and they could exercise their free speech there. The WBC is also violating the citizen-respect theory, because they are offending not only individuals but also groups, in particular, marginalized groups such as homosexuals and Jews.
I personally feel that under the offense and respect principle, the WBC should be banned from picketing and parading their offensive signs. I think that their outright displays of hatred are going beyond their right to free speech because they are no longer avoidable by the general public and they are targeting specific groups. I don’t think that the WBC should be banned entirely. They should be allowed to practice their beliefs in private, such as in their church, and maintain their website, since the public can choose whether or not they want to visit it.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is one case that supports my argument. In this case, a Jehovah’s Witness was using a private sidewalk as a pulpit, causing a scene. Additionally, he verbally attacked a marshal, which led to his arrest in accordance with a New Hampshire law that prohibits directed offensive speech. The unanimous court decision in this case was that there are limited categories of speech which are not protected by the First Amendment. As stated by Justice Frank Murphy,“These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” The WBC’s messages do breach peace due to their offensive nature, and they do more harm than good to society.
Although it can be argued that under Cohen v. California, the WBC would be able to continue spreading their messages, I wonder if this is accurate. The court ruling in the case states that "the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense." The WBC publicly displays their messages every chance that they get – it’s not an occasional action. The publicity of the WBC is more widespread than the famous “Fuck the Draft” jacket worn by Paul Cohen. And the four-letter word used on the jacket is only one of the many offensive words used by the WBC, not to mention their racial, anti-religion, and homophobic slurs. I agree that vulgarity is a necessary evil and that it is a side-effect in the exchange of ideas, but is the vulgarity employed by the WBC too over-the-top to accept given the WBC’s unappealing and offensive messages and ideas? Especially considering that few people share the WBC's beliefs except the people who are members of the church itself.
In conclusion, I feel that the WBC should be judged in accordance with Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, and their free speech should be punished due to its violation of the offense and respect theories, and possibly the harm theory as well (depending on the definition given of “harm”). I support my stance with Chafee’s philosophy of democratic speech that promotes social interest, and I think that the WBC should be able to practice their free speech out of public view in accordance with Joel Feinberg's views on the offense principle and hate speech. I would not provide the WBC with absolute protection of free speech, because I think that their speech should be prohibited due it its high level of offensiveness to society. Therefore, I would use minimal scrutiny, in which the government must provide only a rational reason for their regulation and restriction of the WBC’s speech. If Mill’s harm principle proved to be applicable, I might instead look at the case under the lens of intermediate scrutiny, if it passed the test of clear and present danger. However, it doesn’t seem as though the WBC is causing any immediate or obvious risks, unless emotional harm and distress can be defined as dangerous and harmful.
First off, I would agree with you that Chafee would consider WBC’s speech as “worthless” speech as they aren’t contributing to the interests of society. I would also agree that they would pass Mill’s “harm” principle in that they are not inciting immediate or imminent harm. However, they are absolutely offending people as well as not respecting fellow citizens, and would be in violation of these two of Mill’s principles (offense theory and citizen-respect theory). I also feel that WBC should be banned, but that is based on personal feelings against their messages and the way that they go about promoting those messages. I commend your use of using Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire in that WBC is using “fighting words,” words that are lewd, obscene, profane, etc. Even under Canada’s new law that journalists can defend themselves against libel suits claiming that they were engaging in “responsible communication” because WBC cannot claim that they know all the facts and carefully checked all of their information that they present for public interest, because they are not claiming logical, checkable information. Yet, I would be more likely to side with Cohen v. California because they are, in fact, exercising fundamental, explicit constitutional rights. WBC is exercising their First Amendment Constitutional right, in that “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 to assemble…” WBC is peacefully protesting and are not, as they stated in the video, engaging in acts of violence to get their messages across. They are even protected in the UDHR, in that although their messages and perspectives may be looked down upon and in extremely bad taste, under Article 7 of the UDHR, they are “equal before the law…without any discrimination” and are also protected under Article 18, 19, and 20 of the UDHR. They are protected under Article 18 of the UDHR because of their right to religion and practicing that religion, which states that, they have the “right to freedom of thought, conscious and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” In Article 19 of the UDHR, they have the right to freedom of expression and opinion and can hold that without interference and can seek, receive, and impart that information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers. Article 20 gives WBC the right to peacefully assemble. I would apply strict scrutiny to this case, because I think that the government needs to provide a compelling reason to restrict or punish free, peaceful speech, as offensive or in bad taste as it is. Thus, although I agree and want WBC’s speech that is especially offensive to be restricted, I also think that it can’t be because unfortunately, they are exercising their right to free speech and although offensive and disrespectful to fellow citizens, cannot be punished and discriminated against due to content.
ReplyDeleteHello. I agree with you that WBC’s speech is very offensive, and it should be restricted. Although Mill’s harm theory may not be a very good fit for WBC’s case, these offensive speeches (that targeted minority groups of people) falls into respect and offense theory. I also agree that Chafee’s view is applicable to this case that their speech is “worthless” (because it is more about an interest of individuals than social). Therefore, in Chafee’s view, their speeches do no need to be protected. Because of their religious nature, they may look like under the protection of Article 18 of he Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I don’t think it’s the case because their religious activities (?) could violate other people’s right. In addition to your philosophical approach, I like your choice of case, which is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. In the case the guy is arrested for being offensive at others in public place (sidewalk). I think that the physical locations are similar in both cases, and also, the restricted speech in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire seems to share some elements of the case of WBC although the restricted speech in he case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire may be bit narrower than WBC’s. Overall, speech of WBC seems too much to call it a religious speech, and I agree that it doesn’t have to be protected.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a good job of looking at both the pros and cons of allowing the Westboro Baptist Church to be in existence. Though most of us may not agree with their views and their constant antagonizing of innocent people (such as soldiers who gave their lives fighting for our country), they technically do have a right to freedom of expression. However, how do we draw the line between free, but offensive speech and illegal speech--considering the WBC never does any physical harm to anyone?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your idea that the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to congregate in private, but not public since they consistently violate the citizen-respect theory by targeting specific groups of people such as Jews and homosexuals. Also as shown in the investigative video by Louis Theroux, they are not only directing their obscene comments to gays and Jews, but they also single out people driving on the streets.
I also believe that Zechariah Chafee's idea of "worthless speech" is applicable in this case since the WBC is not saying anything that is beneficial to anyone else other than themselves. They are not exactly promoting peace or intending to help others, but rather they are scrutinizing others for having beliefs and values different than their own. The WBC is completely unopen to new ideas and don't even want to hear opposing views.
I agree that the Westboro Baptist Church should be held accountable for the messages it unleashes into the public sphere. Their messages are laden with malice and harm and they are becoming more and more aggressive in getting their message across as you’ve mentioned by referencing the recent Twitter protest.
ReplyDeleteIn trying the WBC, as you’ve suggested, our judicial system would encounter many hurdles and would be most interested in protecting the right that individuals have to free speech. Keeping this in mind, you cited Feinberg and Chaffee and the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire precedent. While I too believe that the Westboro Baptist Church should be prosecuted, I’m not certain that applying minimal scrutiny would be the most prudent scrutiny level to apply to this case. Because minimal scrutiny requires little proof from the government and places the burden of proof on the speaker, it could endanger others’ right to free speech. In seeking punishment for the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, and applying minimal scrutiny, the court could unwittingly reign in forms of speech that fall outside of the WBC’s hateful vernacular.
By applying Feinberg’s interpretation of the offense principle along with Chaffee’s ideas about worthless speech and adhering to the precedent set by Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, I think you’d stand a good chance of arguing against the WBC. I realize that tactically, rational review would likely be successful in reigning in the WBC’s speech, but I believe that since this issue is wrapped up in constitutional rights much bigger than the WBC, punishing bad tendency might have other unintended consequences.