Having studied the Constitution's history and present since my first class in Constitutional History in 1982, I feel I have a somewhat "informed opinion" about the actions of the Court. Since the
Schenk case at the close of the First World War, the Court has taken it upon itself to defend the First Amendment with vigor. The famous and not so famous cases that have made their way through the dockets of history demonstrate that the Court has indeed pursued the promised "preferred positions" doctrine with respect to First Amendment freedom of speech and expression: in recent years amidst all of the clamor from the left that civil liberties were thrown under the bus by the Republican administrations, the Court has held firm in protecting the First Amendment. In 1989, the Court ruled that burning the flag of the United States as a means of political expression was Constitutionally protected; in 2002, the Court ruled that "virtual child porn" was also protected by the First Amendment. The rationale here was that no children were actually harmed in the production of the images. Now, the latest travesty:
Snyder v. Phelps, et al. In this horrendous case, the Court upheld the right to protest at military funerals. I was deeply disappointed that Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined in Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion. Only Associate Justice Samuel Alito had the courage to stand up to the "Emperor with no clothes." The First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech was one of the most important features of the Bill of Rights--our country came into being because of the bravery of Thomas Paine and others who proved that the pen was indeed mightier than the sword--mobilizing colonial opinion to support the concept of independence. Bravo to Paine, Adams, Jefferson, and all these fearless men. We must always stand by this freedom of political speech; however, in their zeal to show their adoration for this right and to highlight its "preferred position" the Court has come to worship a god that does not exist. What would the founding fathers have thought about these cases which place a political ideal above decency and dignity? Madison and those men in Philadelphia in that hot summer of 1887 created an instrument of government to serve the people, not an empty god to be served by the people.
3 comments:
Hi Janis. The Snyder case was quite an interesting one. As I understatnd it, the jury ruled in favor of Mr. Snyder, but that decision was overturned because of 2 important reasons. 1st- the judge gave erroneous intructions to the jury by telling them that outrageous speach intended to stir up people's emotions is not protected by the 1st amendment. Actually, it very much is protected. What is not protected is obscentity, libel, and violence inciting speach, which this was not. 2nd- The appealate court found that Mr. Snyder's claim that the funeral was disrupted was not true. The protesters were 1000 feet away, on public property. The attendants at the funeral could not hear what the protesters were saying, nor could they read what was written on their signs. It was only after the funeral was over, and everyone went home, that they became offended by what they saw on the news.
There are many things about this case that offend me. But my grandfather used to say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
One of the things that offends me, is that Phelps and his people have been out there protesting funerals for over 20 years, but only recently have people become offended by this. I wonder why that is?
Nice to see you're blogging again. I follow it everyday.
Your grnadfather quoted Voltaire very well. I am familiar with the Chaplinsky exceptions, and it would seem that the Court has tremendously limited those exceptions. I have been offended by the Phelps family for some time--in fact they love to target Southern Baptists at Conventions. They have even protested at our college, but they made the error of coming on our Spring Break. This case has brought them once again into national prominence, which is of course, their goal.
... and just for the record, my problem them has nothing to do with the fact that they love to picket the SBC and its colleges. It is somewhat a "badge of honor"--I hate what they stand for--period.
Post a Comment