Challenging the First Amendment

Westboro Baptist Church’s website’s URL is godhatesfags.com, where they proudly display a picket schedule. Westboro has been known since the 1950’s as an “anti-gay hate group” based in Topeka, Kansas.

(Photo credits: telegraph.co.uk)

Recently, their First Amendment right to hold their daily picketing has been put into question. The Supreme Court decided today that they will be reviewing the Westboro’s picketing and deciding if they are still protected under the First Amendment.

This was started by a 2007 case in which Albert Snyder, a father of a slain marine, sued the Westboro church for causing excessive emotional damage when they picketed his son’s funeral, reports The Star Topeka. The Maryland courts ruled in favor of Snyder, but this was later overruled by the appeal court, stating that they were protected under the First Amendment.

The Star Topeka reports that “Westboro’s adherents argue that the First Amendment is designed to protect speech the majority may not want to hear.”

This is a different case of censorship, because the actions in questions are not the sole responsibility of a gatekeeper, such as editors, who decide whether to print, film, publish something. Rather, this is an example of common people excessively demonstrating (and abusing) their freedom of speech.

Though Cohen states that an evil to censorship is partly that it causes people to be calloused, first-hand accounts in the Westboro case would argue that censorship is necessary at times.

“You don’t stand 30 feet from the entrance to a church with a sign depicting two men having anal intercourse,” Snyder said. “That wasn’t freedom of speech; it was harassment.”

Cohen claims that even if the most controversial topics (such as Westboro picketing gays) falls under the following categories, they are justified in (and obligated to) being shared with the population, despite the consequence:

1) Interesting – leading towards the truth

2) True claims - Encourage knowledge of the truth

3) Good art – these people helps understand

4) Depictions of good ways of life.

Even by following this slightly skewed set of criteria, it is evident that Westboro is not justified in their outrageous actions.

1) Though Westboro indeed has interesting and catchy taglines, they do not lead towards the truth. There is no evidence, within or without the church that “God Hates Fags.” Even an unbeliever has tangible evidence.

2) Westboro has no true claims, though they base their assertions on Biblical teachings. It is true that God hates sin (Heb 1:9) but Westboro’s claims are founded on God’s hate of people.

3) People do not understand more about anything (besides the true character of these individuals) through their actions. If anything, they are confusing people about the intention of God and the church.

4) There are no positive vibes derived from Westboro’s bold statements. God is not seen as good, nor are the people that He put on this earth.

By going by Cohen’s very criteria against censorship, it is clear that Westboro’s actions should not be protected under the First Amendment, and indeed be censored.