The Supreme Court recently decided a case addressing our rights to freedom of speech. The Court said that this right is fundamental and must be protected from censorship. I agree with this principal. On the other hand, as the Court has ruled in the past, there are limits on this right. For example, one cannot cry “fire” in a crowded theater and be protected by the right to freedom of speech. The ban on certain advertising of tobacco products has been upheld even though the products are legal for sale and use and the government benefits from sales through taxes and has subsidized the production of tobacco. Similarly, the Court has said that obscenity was outside the protection intended for speech and the press. What is pornography? How is it defined? What type of language is not acceptable due to its obscene nature? Justice Potter Stewart said he could not define pornography but he knew it when he saw it. So do we! In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in dealing with first amendment rights, said they were limited where speech constituted a “clear and present danger”. I believe the evil conduct we have seen meets all tests of what is outside the protection accorded free speech.
One must wonder why the Supreme Court did not apply this standard to the recent free speech case. The case involves a small, bizarre “church” group that opposes gays. I will not dignify them by mentioning their name. They have chosen to express their views by picketing and seeking to disrupt the funerals of our fallen warriors. At a time, which must be the most difficult for the family and their community, they applaud the deaths of American soldiers. The Court referred to this as “hurtful” speech. Oh, what a penchant for understatement. The Court has participated in disrespecting our heroes.
Like Justice Stewart, I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it. I clearly see the activities of the evil church group as obscene and a clear and present danger and it should not be allowed as protected speech. The Court ruled wrongly and its opinion will be the vehicle of hurt for the families of those who have fallen while serving their country. As is generally the case, when the government fails to protect our rights, we must do so for ourselves. So far, numbers of good people and groups have made it their duty to stand between the grieving family and those who spew pure evil. To the extent that I can join the effort, I will. It is the least I can do. It is my duty in a civil society to protect the rights of others. I hope it is yours as well.
www.WeThePeopleBlog.net
Comments: comments@wethepeopleblog.net
