Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
"The only resistance to the perceived repression, Body Snatchers tells us, is an embattled individualism."
Mr. Whitehead, you're an attorney. Have you assisted anyone who was attempting to fight (in court) the theft of his property via eminent domain? How about someone attempting to defend his personal liberty by fighting a ticket for refusing to wear a seatbelt.
It's easy to write about what is wrong with society. Getting chewed up and spit out of a corrupt corporate court system is another matter entirely.
D. Paape
I saw body snatchers when I was 6 years old and it scared the living daylights out of me. But your article has shed new light on a movie I was unable to understand as a child. Your article came at a very relevant time for me as we have been receiving "visits" and "calls" from the census bureau that irritate and bother us. Your statement, "There is hope in the defiant individual" is another moment of encouragement for us to continue resisting the invasive questioning.
Thank you for your well thought out article,
B. Stump
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Snyder v. Phelps: Will Misguided Patriotism Destroy Free Speech?
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Mr. Whitehead;
I read with interest your Sunday article in our local newspaper, the York (PA) Sunday news. You were concerned enough to share your opinion with me. I wish to reciprocate.
I am a veteran of the U.S. Army, a registered Democrat, and a staunch advocate of free speech. My position applies especially to the Westboro Baptist Church, radical though their position may be. You might conclude that his places me squarely astride the Snyder vs. Phelps issue. But you would be wrong.
It is clear to me that the issue before the Supreme court is not a freedom of speech issue. It is a decency and due consideration issue as it applies to the family of a fallen U.S. Soldier. It is irrational to posit that the issue would apply to a dead soldier. It does not. I believe that Snyder should prevail on that basis.
Compare my point of view (roughly) to the example of crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Crying "FIRE" is not necessarily wrong. But where and when the cry is given can be harmful. Families of dead American heroes, in their private hour of personal sorrow, should be protected from vile and obscene protests by inconsiderate lunatics. But those lunatics should have the right to express any politically obscene view they wish, in any neutral and public location.
Your position is wrong, Mr. Whitehead. I sincerely hope that you never have to abide a disgusting political protest while burying your son. Until you do, I will consider your opinion irrelevant.
C. Runk
While I agree in principle with your article regarding Mr. Phelps, I don't agree that he has the right to completely disrupt a family's grief. Mr. Phelps, lunatic that he is, has literally thousands of ways to make his "ideas" known. I wonder if it was your loved one's funeral if you would feel the same. Please walk for a moment in Mr. Snyder's shoes. How sad that he can't respect his son's life and service with honor. --Alice
I want to say thank you for your wonderful articles. I read them in the Crossville Chronicle. I look forward to each one. They always are thought provoking. I like to say that they wake up my brain cells and start me thinking again. And no, I don’t always agree with you, but you always make me think. Thank you. I would wish that everyone would read your articles. My fear is that we are a nation that is becoming very complacent and that is a dangerous place to be. This particular article I am copying and sending to my grandchildren, who are of college age and are pretty sure they know it all. I like to discuss things like your article with them. It keeps us involved. Again, I thank you. Keep up the good work.
J. Wilt
Your commentary in the Daily Progress on Snyder Vs. Phelps disgusted me. What is at issue with the Westboro Baptist Church is not the content of their speech but the venue in which they insist on spewing that speech. In our "free society" there are many ways in which we relegate our "freedom" for either the common good, or for the basic functioning of the society. For example, rules of the road, stop lights, one-way signs, etc. There are restrictions on hate speech and there are restrictions on vulgarity in print, television, and such. These protestors are free to choose another venue. These are funerals which deserve privacy and protection. These grieving families, while burying their loved ones, should be protected from this "hate speech" directed at the militray.
It is also clear by the tone of your article that you expect the Supreme Court to rule with the Snyder family and thus you go on to state that such a ruling illustrates how far we've fallen as a free society. You are wrong. Such a ruling will demostrate that as a free society we are careful, and recognize that freedom is a huge responsibily that does not justify freedoms at the expense of others under all situations. We are a caring society. We will defend peoples right to say what they want even when it is distasteful. Do not try to portray this as an attempt to squash distasteful speech.
This is about protecting the rights of grieving families and rising up as a society to protect them from something that is just as harmful and hurtful as vulgar hate speech. --
R. Emery
Dear John Whitehead,
I always take pleasure in reading your opinions and have tremendous respect for you, although our political views may sometimes be at odds. I am a long-time liberal who emigrated from Apartheid South Africa to the United States in 1969. I believe strongly in the right to free speech, but surely there must be ethical and moral limits?
I worry that the level of discourse in America at the moment is disturbingly ugly, mean-spirited and hate-filled. I have been particularly disturbed by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, and the fact that children hold signs saying God Hates You. I disagree with your statement about war values seeping into American culture. These people have picketed at a Quaker School and obviously are also anti-Semitic. I think that the actions of that church show something warped and ugly and rather frightening emerging in America, and I fear for our children.
Sincerely,
V. Matthews
I am writing to take issue with your July 25 editor "Snyder v. Phelps". While I am a free speech zealot and come down on the same side as you, I find your argument flawed; filled with both factual and historical error. You argument ignores the fact that the regulation in question is about the place where free speech is exercised and instead you misrepresent it as an issue of regulation of content. To restrict the time and place of public protest is not the same as restricting free speech itself, as long as the restrictions do not make exercise of such speech impractical. The right of the members of Westboro Baptist Church to express their views does not imply an unlimited right to interrupt private activities. To protect grieving families from disruptive protest is not the same as a militarization of American iife. Rather, it recognizes that all is not political; that individuals have rights to exercise their religious observances without intrusion from the political realm.
I find ludicrous your invoking Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a paragon of Free Speech and your suggestion of a former golden age where Free Speech was more widely respected. The same Holmes was the author of the infamous Schenck v. US decision that allowed imprisonment for advocating resistance to the draft -- something that hope would not be allowed today. His equating of such behavior to crying fire in a crowded theater was worse than the shameful excesses of the "Patriot Act." More generally, Holmes' judicial legacy was as a "realist" who opposed argument from principle and thus undermined the entire natural law foundation upon which our political rights are based.
Sincerely,
K. Lehmann
Dear Mr. Rutherford,
You give me hope that conservatism hasn't simply morphed into militaristic statism with your column on Snyder vs. Phelps. You recognize the "emerging war empire." I left conservatism as a result of the Bush years, having recognized that the GOP and all the right-wing talking heads had become shills for the US empire. I am glad to know that not all conservatives have drunk from that insidious and poisonous well of tyranny.
I loathe, detest, and repudiate Fred Phelps. He is a hateful, odious, gasbag bottom feeder. But if the government silences him, it will eventually silence you and me. Thanks for your wisdom.
J. Hershberger
What I think makes this case even more interesting is that I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church is in truth, merely performance art. In the 1950 and 1960s, Mr. Phelps was a nationally reknowned civil rights attorney. There are many explanation of his evolution from an arbiter of social justice to a reviled religious bigot, but after doing some research and observing some of their protests (including their online music videos), I am convinced that the WBC is merely a parody intended to show hypocricy within the Christian religion. After all, one of his last cases before he was disbarred was to sue the federal government for violation of the separation of church and state after Reagan appointed an ambassador to the Vatican.
M. Kaney
Mr. Whitehead;
I read with interest your Sunday article in our local newspaper, the York (PA) Sunday news. You were concerned enough to share your opinion with me. I wish to reciprocate.
I am a veteran of the U.S. Army, a registered Democrat, and a staunch advocate of free speech. My position applies especially to the Westboro Baptist Church, radical though their position may be. You might conclude that his places me squarely astride the Snyder vs. Phelps issue. But you would be wrong.
It is clear to me that the issue before the Supreme court is not a freedom of speech issue. It is a decency and due consideration issue as it applies to the family of a fallen U.S. Soldier. It is irrational to posit that the issue would apply to a dead soldier. It does not. I believe that Snyder should prevail on that basis.
Compare my point of view (roughly) to the example of crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Crying "FIRE" is not necessarily wrong. But where and when the cry is given can be harmful. Families of dead American heroes, in their private hour of personal sorrow, should be protected from vile and obscene protests by inconsiderate lunatics. But those lunatics should have the right to express any politically obscene view they wish, in any neutral and public location.
Your position is wrong, Mr. Whitehead. I sincerely hope that you never have to abide a disgusting political protest while burying your son. Until you do, I will consider your opinion irrelevant.
C. Runk
While I agree in principle with your article regarding Mr. Phelps, I don't agree that he has the right to completely disrupt a family's grief. Mr. Phelps, lunatic that he is, has literally thousands of ways to make his "ideas" known. I wonder if it was your loved one's funeral if you would feel the same. Please walk for a moment in Mr. Snyder's shoes. How sad that he can't respect his son's life and service with honor. --Alice
I want to say thank you for your wonderful articles. I read them in the Crossville Chronicle. I look forward to each one. They always are thought provoking. I like to say that they wake up my brain cells and start me thinking again. And no, I don’t always agree with you, but you always make me think. Thank you. I would wish that everyone would read your articles. My fear is that we are a nation that is becoming very complacent and that is a dangerous place to be. This particular article I am copying and sending to my grandchildren, who are of college age and are pretty sure they know it all. I like to discuss things like your article with them. It keeps us involved. Again, I thank you. Keep up the good work.
J. Wilt
Your commentary in the Daily Progress on Snyder Vs. Phelps disgusted me. What is at issue with the Westboro Baptist Church is not the content of their speech but the venue in which they insist on spewing that speech. In our "free society" there are many ways in which we relegate our "freedom" for either the common good, or for the basic functioning of the society. For example, rules of the road, stop lights, one-way signs, etc. There are restrictions on hate speech and there are restrictions on vulgarity in print, television, and such. These protestors are free to choose another venue. These are funerals which deserve privacy and protection. These grieving families, while burying their loved ones, should be protected from this "hate speech" directed at the militray.
It is also clear by the tone of your article that you expect the Supreme Court to rule with the Snyder family and thus you go on to state that such a ruling illustrates how far we've fallen as a free society. You are wrong. Such a ruling will demostrate that as a free society we are careful, and recognize that freedom is a huge responsibily that does not justify freedoms at the expense of others under all situations. We are a caring society. We will defend peoples right to say what they want even when it is distasteful. Do not try to portray this as an attempt to squash distasteful speech.
This is about protecting the rights of grieving families and rising up as a society to protect them from something that is just as harmful and hurtful as vulgar hate speech. --
R. Emery
Dear John Whitehead,
I always take pleasure in reading your opinions and have tremendous respect for you, although our political views may sometimes be at odds. I am a long-time liberal who emigrated from Apartheid South Africa to the United States in 1969. I believe strongly in the right to free speech, but surely there must be ethical and moral limits?
I worry that the level of discourse in America at the moment is disturbingly ugly, mean-spirited and hate-filled. I have been particularly disturbed by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, and the fact that children hold signs saying God Hates You. I disagree with your statement about war values seeping into American culture. These people have picketed at a Quaker School and obviously are also anti-Semitic. I think that the actions of that church show something warped and ugly and rather frightening emerging in America, and I fear for our children.
Sincerely,
V. Matthews
I am writing to take issue with your July 25 editor "Snyder v. Phelps". While I am a free speech zealot and come down on the same side as you, I find your argument flawed; filled with both factual and historical error. You argument ignores the fact that the regulation in question is about the place where free speech is exercised and instead you misrepresent it as an issue of regulation of content. To restrict the time and place of public protest is not the same as restricting free speech itself, as long as the restrictions do not make exercise of such speech impractical. The right of the members of Westboro Baptist Church to express their views does not imply an unlimited right to interrupt private activities. To protect grieving families from disruptive protest is not the same as a militarization of American iife. Rather, it recognizes that all is not political; that individuals have rights to exercise their religious observances without intrusion from the political realm.
I find ludicrous your invoking Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a paragon of Free Speech and your suggestion of a former golden age where Free Speech was more widely respected. The same Holmes was the author of the infamous Schenck v. US decision that allowed imprisonment for advocating resistance to the draft -- something that hope would not be allowed today. His equating of such behavior to crying fire in a crowded theater was worse than the shameful excesses of the "Patriot Act." More generally, Holmes' judicial legacy was as a "realist" who opposed argument from principle and thus undermined the entire natural law foundation upon which our political rights are based.
Sincerely,
K. Lehmann
Mr Whitehead: Regarding the Westboro Baptist Church case on which you have recently written, I have some concerns of a different nature relative to cases of that sort (what sort I mean I will make clear below).
To me freedom of speech means the freedom not to be constrained in spoken or written expression of opinions, beliefs, etc., because of content, so long as such content does not explicitly incite others to actions that would threaten public safety. This freedom also includes absence of purposeful constraint on access to said expression by those who wish such access.
Currently, there seems to be an implicit assumption that the freedom of speech of an individual or group of individuals is being "abridged" if they are prevented from seeking out a captive audience and forcing their speech (or expression) on that audience. This is the case with the Westboro Baptist matter as with the American Nazis in Skokie who were successfully defended by the ACLU.
In my own view, my right to freely express myself is no more worthy of protection than your right to get out of earshot when I do so if you so desire. But I realize that others may differ. As for funerals, although I wouldn't distinguish that of a soldier from that of any other departed, those present certainly have a right to mourn without disruption. Laws of public nuisance, disturbance of the peace and trespass certainly should provide legitimate grounds for preventing such disruption.
And I would think that such limitations as denial of the right to force speech on an unwilling audience should not significantly diminish the effectiveness of a "free marketplace of ideas" so long as speech remains free to the extent indicated in my second paragraph above.
It is perhaps unfortunate that Justice Holmes did not consider other proper reasons for preventing an interloper from interrupting a theater performance than just his threatening public safety.
C. Coffman
Mr. Whitehead,
I wanted to thank you for your article linked on LewRockwell.com about Westboro Baptist Church and the implications of their pending lawsuits. I am a 6-year veteran of the North Carolina Air National Guard, and I have a long family history of military service. I’ve actually had my own run-ins with the Westboro church when I lived in Kansas, and have been the personal target of their protests several times.
But regardless of how offensive their speech is, and regardless of how sick it might make me to see them protest at the funeral of 18-year old kids killed because of their naïve belief that freedom can be gained through force of arms, I agree with you that attempts to silence such speech is a far greater threat to our liberties. As you quote by Holmes suggested, our freedom of speech is meaningless unless it protests the speech of those with which we disagree.
My biggest problem with Westboro is not their terribly bigoted views, but more of their attempts to goad people into violence through their protests. They abuse our broken legal system by doing their best to get people to react physically or by stopping the protest so that they can sue the parties involved for huge payouts through their own law firm. While speech and assembly definitely should be protected, massive lawsuits beyond just compensation should not be.
I also wanted to thank you for pointing out America’s culture of soldier worship. While that culture tends to benefit many in uniform, I have come to realize over my years in the military that the soldier culture is probably the best example of American socialism available and represents a model that is started to show the classic signs of socialist failure (e.g. military healthcare and soldier benefits now make up most of the DOD total budget and is continuing to skyrocket). I could give you example after example of massive waste and bureaucracy in just my little part of the military.
There are those of us working to reduce that waste and reduce the size of the military and military intervention from within though, but that seems more and more like a never ending fight with our multiple wars and continuing contingencies overseas. Please continue writing, and I’ll continue reading.
A. Smith
Dear Mr. Rutherford,
You give me hope that conservatism hasn't simply morphed into militaristic statism with your column on Snyder vs. Phelps. You recognize the "emerging war empire." I left conservatism as a result of the Bush years, having recognized that the GOP and all the right-wing talking heads had become shills for the US empire. I am glad to know that not all conservatives have drunk from that insidious and poisonous well of tyranny.
I loathe, detest, and repudiate Fred Phelps. He is a hateful, odious, gasbag bottom feeder. But if the government silences him, it will eventually silence you and me. Thanks for your wisdom.
J. Hershberger
What I think makes this case even more interesting is that I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church is in truth, merely performance art. In the 1950 and 1960s, Mr. Phelps was a nationally reknowned civil rights attorney. There are many explanation of his evolution from an arbiter of social justice to a reviled religious bigot, but after doing some research and observing some of their protests (including their online music videos), I am convinced that the WBC is merely a parody intended to show hypocricy within the Christian religion. After all, one of his last cases before he was disbarred was to sue the federal government for violation of the separation of church and state after Reagan appointed an ambassador to the Vatican.
M. Kaney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)