4 ms·
I think United States v. Stevens (2010) provides interesting context for this story. The case concerned the constitutionality of a bill banning so-called "crus
by hawkharris 14y ago
I think United States v. Stevens (2010) provides interesting context for this story.
The case concerned the constitutionality of a bill banning so-called "crush" videos: brutal films in which naked women use their high heels to crush small animals to death.
The Court struck down the bill because it was too broad, banning the sale and transport of videos that depicted an animal being maimed, tortured or killed. They cited the fact that such broad language would include hunting videos and factory protest videos like the ones in question.
Although crush videos are clearly horrifying and wrong, I felt a strong sense of patriotism when I learned about the Court's verdict. You know that the First Amendment is strong when the Court will consider freedom-of-speech issues even in the face of something that is universally despised.
Hopefully, the bills in question now will be challenged and same constitutional principles will be applied.
- drivebyacct2 14y agoWell, I suppose in some places animal cruelty is more universally rejected than anti-gay sentiments, but in my opinion, the Phelps family embodies the same principle. I don't know of anyone (aside from a few families that have moved to Topeka to join them) that would support the things the Phelp's family says. But their speech is protected (as it should be). And really, it forces even the most conservative, Confederate-flag-waving of my schoolmates to be vocal supporters of gay rights when I doubt they'd be otherwise.
- Evbn 14y agoPhelps is really in a class a part, as their speech serves no purpose except to harm people. Harm is not a collateral damage that must be tolerated, but the direct intent of their actions, to no greater purpose even from their own point of view.
- icebraining 14y agoNot true, they claim to be warning people about "the wrath to come".
- drivebyacct2 14y agoYeah, people think that they're just "haters" or whatever clearly know nothing about them. Go to their website and read about their beliefs and why they do what they do. They're far more consistent about their beliefs and their preaching than most Christian churches. In many ways, they're saying the same things as the more mild-mannered anti-gay people. (I actually love to see Christian people whining about the Phelps. I just shake my head and laugh, they have their interpretation of the Bible and you have yours.)
- hawkharris 14y agoBecause the purpose and value of speech are subjective, speech must be protected even when it appears to have no purpose. That was the principle at stake in Synder vs. Phelps. Consider the facts of the case. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested on public property, over 1,000 yards away from the funeral of Matthew Snyder. Although the signs were certainly offensive, they did not mention members of the family by name so as to start a fight. And they did not urge people to commit acts of violence. In other words, the protest clearly did not meet the standards of fighting words or incitement to violence — categories of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. I agree that the protest was morally despicable. So did the justices. Still, Westboro members participated in a peaceful protest on public property. To ban that behavior would set a very dangerous precedent.
- hawkharris 14y agoThat's a great example. I don't agree with what Westboro said, but I support their right to say it. As Chief Justice Roberts explained in the opinion for that case: "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
- aspensmonster 14y agoI'm surprised someone would try to ban such videos. You'd think it more productive to ban the act of "crushing" itself. That someone recorded the act just provides evidence for any appropriate legal action (and vigilante justice too, it seems).