Free Speech is a right, but it is not a right to hurt (WUmester event post)
This blog post is in response to the Wumester event I attended today, and the discussion in class today and what transpired over the weekend at WU. The event I went to today was all about how the Phelps family uses Free Speech and tort law to secure their right to protest funerals and other events.
What I learned at this event is that the current make up of the US Supreme Court tends to rule in favor of a majoirty of free speech cases. The Phelps family uses many court cases as legal precedent to help them stay within the legal bounds of the speech and signs they have at protests. The landmark cases for speech is New York Times vs. Sullivan. Sullivan was a public safety commissioner for an Alabama city. The NYT took out an ad to solicit funds to defend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The police commisioner thought the Times was defaming his deputies. The court ruled in favor of the Times because these men were public figures and the court could not believe that the Times would not knowingly cause malice to these men as individuals.
Fast forward to Snyder vs Phelps. The Phelps family protest a combat veterans funeral. The father filed a suit and won in state court. The Phelps family appealed it to the US Supreme Court and won. The court found the state court wrongly awarded the Snyder family damages and limited the Phelps family's speech.
Here is my question: Why is speech that is intended to hurt something that is protected. There are limitations on what people can say (can't yell fire in a movie theater). What is the difference when people use inflamitory language or have hate-filled signs at funerals or church services, to yelling fire in a theater or making threats. The speaker today said if a threat is directed at individual(s) then it is no longer protected. People deserve the right to feel safe. When hateful language or racist language make people feel unsafe, I find it hard to believe that is not something that should be limited.
I am not a lawmaker or a legal mind, but I think with recent events on campus and in our nation, we should get to a place where intolerant, hateful speech should never be accepted as common place. I find myself too often normalizing events that should never be accepted. I think people consider rhetoric we hear at the highest levels of government as a one off. I firmly stand by the idea that freedom of speech is not the freedom to hurt. I do not want people to live in a repressive society, but I would argue many people feel like they can't speak out because the forces of hate and intolerance suck all the oxygen out of the room. After the WUmester and class discussion today, I realized I need to do more, I need to listen more, I need to care more.
I am a more informed and a better person because of what I learned today. I am a better person because of the diversity of our nation and all the people in it. I think that is something we all can embrace! Free Speech is our right, but it is not our right to hurt!
Comments
Post a Comment