On Hate Speech and Putting the Westboro Baptist Church To Flight...

[xocet]

Isn't it rather enjoyable to see the Westboro Baptist Church flee from one of their hateful "peaceful protests" as they are overwhelmed by the threat of the greater numbers of their opponents? Doesn't it feel good to see those vermin, those cowards, those morons be put to flight?

As good as it may seem to feel at first, it is fundamentally wrong to accept and to celebrate the tactics that were displayed in Moore, OK. These tactics rely on an implicit threat of violence to displace and, thus, to silence voices that speak a minority opinion. A loud, voluminous counter-protest is a thing to be commended. A frontal assault across a no-man's land that is under-manned by police is not consistent with the ideas behind the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

For those who may think that what has been written above is ludicrous, the ACLU offers an article in defense of the First Amendment on their website. Though their article refers to a campus setting, their argument is generally valid as is the First Amendment:

Hate Speech on Campus
December 31, 1994

...

Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate.

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.

...

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

For those who have not seen the event:

Lastly, and for the record, I do not support the Westboro Baptist Church or their ideas, but they do have a right to state them - however distasteful those ideas may be.

[Arkansas Granny]

1. Yes, as distasteful as it is, their speech is protected. It's my understanding that most of

the income of WBC comes from filing lawsuits when they feel they have not been allowed to exercise their right to free speech. That's why they hold these protests in they first place. I won't be surprised if they file suit over this incident.

IMHO, they best response to their hatefests would be to ignore them. No press coverage, no counter protest, no attention at all. Just walk away and don't give them an audience, much like you would that bratty kid who throws that kicking, screaming fit on the floor.

[pinboy3niner]

2. Were they "put to flight" or did they just leave?

Their history is that WBC--when it even shows up for an announced protest--stays just a short time and leaves.

[xocet]

3. That is a fair question. From the video, it looks to me like the police were trying to keep people

separated on opposite sides of the road. When that failed, WBC took off.

If there is better video out there, that would provide a better answer. You might be correct, though. I don't have definitive evidence of them being "put to flight", but it seems that way to me in the video. I could be wrong.

[Javaman]

4. westboro is a scam. what they do they do for money. read this...

Why the Westboro Baptist Church is a Scam

http://kanewj.com/wbc/

Fred Phelps does not believe what he is doing. This is a scam.

It's a business. They travel the country, set up websites telling you exactly when they'll be there, and using the most inflammatory statements all over the place, just to get someone to violate their rights for profit. Then they sue the military, the police force that was to protect them, and everyone that is around them for money. This is a sham, and it is a trap to get people sued. Every member of his family is an attorney. Phelps does not break the law. What he does is try to make you break the law by trying to punch your sensibilities about everything you hold dear, and then sue you and everyone municipality around him to the max.

This is a scam.

Whether he believes his posters or not is irrelevant.
He's using this as a moneymaking scheme.
Lay one finger on him, do one thing that violates him, and he will sue you, and more importantly, the city, the police department, the US Military, and any private property owner he happens to be standing on to make money off of it.


more at link...

[aikoaiko]

5. There was no threat. They scurried because that's what they do.

3 or 4 people walking up to them is no threat.

Most of their demonstrations are 20 mins long, their pictures get taken, and then scurry off just they did in the video.

[Daemonaquila]

6. Horse hockey.

First off, please don't bother quoting the ACLU. They lost any remaining cred and moral authority they had to speak about speech when they wrote the amicus brief supporting the wrong side of Citizens United. ACLU - proud they helped cement corporate personhood and the the notion that money=speech.

Second, Westboro's stunts are not "speech." They are hateful ACTS against grieving innocents at places and times that are in no way connected with their message. They attack strangers at moments of intense, private mourning for their sick brand of street theater. They try to incite violence against LGBT individuals. If they were just picketing at a street corner with their idiotic message, whatever. But they aren't - they're choosing to victimize real people during times they're at their most vulnerable. So if they get run off with torches and pitchforks? I won't shed any tears, and I'll help light the torches.

[RandoLoodie]

7. you have the right to speech

but that doesn't mean someone won't kick your ass for saying stuff.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. There was no 'ass kicking' nor violece of any kind, the hate mongers got yelled

at, which offends the OP for reasons unstated. The OP is written to imply 'ass kicking' but there was no such thing.

[RandoLoodie]

12. I was speaking generally

[Blue Diadem]

8. Westboro perpetrates emotional violence.

They choose to picket those who are already hurting and vulnerable, I can't recall an occurrence where their intended victims had not experienced an emotional heartbreaking event. That to me is the lowest of low and if people out shout them or stand in their faces it doesn't bother me in the least. I saw no one get physical in the video. Westboro is about hurt and run.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. What in that video do you find problematic? They got shouted down and

confronted by the public. Where is this violence you speak of? How is what Westboro is doing 'speech' but the citizens responding is not? The way your presented this, I expected to see rocks thrown or something, and yet there is no such thing going on.
What is you criticism, exactly?
Please be specific.

[xocet]

11. Why don't you elaborate further on what you think "...on an implicit threat..." means?

Maybe you see the video differently than I do, but it seems unlikely that you mean to actually discuss whether the First Amendment should shield minority voices from intimidation by the implicit threat of violence. You did see the police attempting to stop multiple people from crossing the street, didn't you?

You are kidding yourself if you don't think that that action is threatening - especially when those crossing the street could be the vanguard of an angry mob. Words are fine - threatening actions are not.

If you were ever to find yourself in a similar position, I doubt that you would appreciate your present argument very much.