Freedom of speech and religion was established because government leaders found that those outside the religious “norms” in the U.S. were being persecuted for their beliefs. They felt that if Americans were free to practice religions of their choice, and the government did not endorse one specific sect, then serious problems could be kept at bay. The United States was founded by mostly Christians, and they were a majority—and remain so—but for the government to sanction Christianity as the national religion those of other beliefs would be left out.
Such backlash occurred in the Salem Witch Trials, where groups with different religious beliefs cultivated unlawful arrests and hangings (mostly women). Puritans opposed many beliefs of the Church of England and further stressed a patriarch cal society where women should be totally subservient to men (Mitchoff). They also believed in witches and felt that pure evil from the devil caused their actions, thus the force placement of witchcraft as an answer for public questions. People with assumed different beliefs could—and were—prosecuted before the First Amendment, even if no such behavior was actually condoned by the accused. Because one religion was being established as the norm, this opened the door for persecution and increased the need for freedom of speech and religion.
The aforementioned statement in the Bill of Rights, establishes protection for protests like those exhibited by the Westboro Baptist Church because of intent. Intent to harm must be proven to negate first amendment protection. Such actions have been coined “at risk behavior” and must incite danger or a national threat to be unprotected by the First Amendment (Illinois 1st Amendment Laws). Although their presence could be considered a nuisance, protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church do not suggest physical harm, violence or retaliation of any kind.
In their protests, the Westboro Baptist Church suggests that punishment comes—and will ensue—from God’s wrath. Their hatred for homosexuals is very clear, but interestingly they do not suggest persecution of them because they feel that God will have “his” way with people for accepting such behavior. Their protests mostly surround acceptance—or assumed acceptance—of homosexuality by citizens and politicians of the United States. From the outside, very little correlation could be made about their protests and the event in which they are present. For instance, they protest the annual 9/11 memorial because they feel it (9/11) was Gods way of revenge for people of the United States allowing homosexuals to infiltrate their lives. None of their signs suggest violence; instead they rely on the punishment of God for homosexuals and their supposed allies. Because of their total reliance on god for damnation, protests and behavior from the Westboro Baptist Church does not promote or incite illegal behavior.
Followers of the Westboro Baptist Church are protected by the First Amendment, but it has been argued that those on the receiving end of its protest are not being protected by the same law. This is when some like David Hudson, a First Amendment Law lawyer, feel that freedom gives the law a bad stigma. In a USA Today article he noted that, “You have a very unpopular group engaging in very unpopular speech.” “When you have that combination, that can lead to bad law” (Silver Springs). Albert Snyder, the father of fallen U.S. military personnel Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, was awarded $11 million from a judge in Kansas. His 2007 lawsuit argued that he was not protected from picketing and he plans to spend his earnings on silencing the church, "I was not motivated by money. I want to shut this church down, if you can call it a church. I call it a cult or a hate group” (Silver Springs). Snyder was not protected from signs and chanting, but folks from the Westboro Baptist Church were protected under the constitution. A middle ground between freedoms of both parties should be met. Thus allowing protection for all involved and not suggesting that constitutional freedom is a bad thing.
The Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to protest when they wish, but perimeters could be placed on such events to protect others during times of distress. For instance, they often protest funerals of Iraq soldiers. Their reasoning is that the United States accepts homosexuals; therefore its citizens will be killed because God does not agree with their acceptance. It is unfair for grieving families to deal with close encounters from protesters during a time of great stress, so it could be suggested that protests occur away from the actual funeral. Yes, protesters would be able to voice their opinions, but not within earshot of those attending funerals. In addition, if protests were held near funerals, outbursts from the public could ensue. Because tensions are high during times of death—and the fact that most Americans do not take lightly to the death of soldiers—fights could break out from opposition of protests.
Means of monitoring protests should be established in addition to allowing them from a distance. If particular laws were to be in place, this would set precedence for both parties, and allow constitutional freedom, while also promoting peace. This would mean pioneering national legislation around the topic of protest. A few general guidelines should be established. First, only protected (First Amendment) protests should be allowed to lawfully occur. Next, who should govern such protests? Because of spatial proximity, this would likely be an issue of local policing. They would enforce that danger is not imminent and that the protests are in keeping with yet-to-be determined laws.
Freedom of speech was based on the idea of protection. This is a double edge sword because some feel that it goes too far. If organizations, like the Westboro Baptist Church were allowed to express themselves, in controlled environments, this would allow for adequate protection for all involved parties. Monitoring such protests could eliminate unnecessary legal spending because lawful action and protection would be consistent.
Works Cited
Anonymous, "Church and State". Silver Springs. 5/25/2009 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1437736821&Fmt=3&clientId=19912&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Buchanan, Brian. "History of the First Amendment". First Amendment Center. 5/23/2009
Kate Houston Mitchoff. . "SALEM WITCH TRIALS. " Teacher Librarian 34.3 (2007): 48. Research Library. ProQuest. Seattle University. 24 May. 2009.
Staff. "First Amendment History". Illinois First Amendment Center. 5/24/2009
No comments:
Post a Comment