Can limits be put on free speech? When does free speech stop being a right and becomes harmful to others? After reading many news articles recently about Westboro Baptist Church, I have wondered about the limits that can be put on free speech in the United States. In this case, the issue is protesting at the funerals of fallen soldiers. Some people find this act repulsive; others think that the church is simply exercising their right to free speech as Americans. US Appellate courts have rules on the side of Westboro, stating that protesting at military funerals is acceptable under the first amendment. To add insult to injury, the court even ordered the father of a fallen marine to pay Westboro’s court fees.
The type of protest that is occurring here is shocking. The church claims that “God Hates Fags” and that the war, and resulting deaths, is the fault of sinners in the world. I am wondering where the right to free speech ends and hate speech that hurts others begins? Is there a clearly defined line, or are the definitions blurred? To me, saying that God hates fags or that someone’s son deserved to die is hateful. The courts seem to disagree here. When the right to free speech conflicts with a human’s right to live without persecution, who wins? It seems that it would be easier to rule on the side of free speech, because it is more easily defined, but I think it is important to examine the issue. I don’t think it is right for someone to protest any funeral, but there is a human right to express one’s feelings. Who wins in this situation?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Rebecca. Your post brings up a very interesting question, one that I have been thinking a lot about lately. As we all know, there are legal limits to our freedom of speech. Lately though, it seems as if those limits are being enforced less and less. I completely agree with your post, the sign "God Hates Fags" is extremely hateful and the fact that the people displaying these signs were not legally reprimanded but instead defended by our system is absolutely horrifying. Sadly though, this is not the only example of such a thing occurring in our public domain. Just recently I learned about a Japanese videogame called RapeLay. The game is exactly what it sounds like. It’s a game where you can choose the violent and graphic ways in which you assault the lead female character so as to seek your "revenge" on her. When this game was outlawed in Japan after a huge backlash by certain Women’s Groups, it went viral and is now accessible on the internet worldwide.
ReplyDeleteAfter hearing about this game and seeing the recent publicity regarding the protest you discuss in your blog post, it really has me worried. The United States has a difficult enough time trying to interpret the freedom of speech amendment when the event in question occurs within our own boarders. I am slightly terrified to see how America will attempt to handle international situations such as these when another country’s sadistic creation crosses our boarders via the worldwide web. I seriously hope the United States will address this new concern and employ some sort of censorship to keep out viral games such as these. However, as you argue in your post, America also needs to take a good look at the domestic events it is currently choosing to defend. Although the freedom of speech is a fundamental and necessary right, it does have its restrictions and it is time the United States enforced these restrictions. I don’t think there could be any two better examples to advocate this point than a sign which reads “God Hates Fags” and a viral game which allows you to repeatedly rape an innocent girl.
I really can't believe that there are games like that in the world, and that there is a market of buyers for something like that. I agree with you, the US needs to regulate hateful and demeaning speech. I think they can do this without hurting free speech.
ReplyDelete