If many thought the building of a mosque near “ground zero” challenged our sensibilities last summer, then the god hates fags issue with the recent supreme court decision, finding it acceptable to protest at a funeral (Snyder vs Phelps: aka Westboro Baptist Church), truly is a brain pluck. The issue, as reported, comes down to one of free speech. No matter how distasteful it may be, it should be permitted. Westboro has a history of protesting in a most provocative, incendiary manner. But nevertheless, as the court has decided in numerous cases in the past in the defense of free speech:
492-494 (1975); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 387-
388 (1967). The arguably "inappropriate or controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern." Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 387 (1987).”
388 (1967). The arguably "inappropriate or controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern." Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 387 (1987).”
Conceding this guideline for speech could be acceptable in the interest of not sliding down the slippery slope trying to determine what’s inappropriate or not. The mosque was a question of freedom of religion vs. emotions. But this case is about more and something other than freely expressing one’s opinion. It’s about disseminating false information and hate. It’s one of inciting violent behavior. We’re not debating burning the flag, or denouncing public policy. We’re talking “God hates fags” should be in the category of shouting fire in a crowded theater. My problem is that expressing “god hates fags” is not only divisive, but in this case is being protected and cloaked in the 1st amendment. It is also carrying the extra mesmerizing weight of a deity. People do extraordinary things in the name of deities. They’ve been known to go thousands of miles for crusades and jihads. Further:
“The(appeals) court reviewed the picket signs and concluded that Westboro's statements were entitled to First Amendment protection because those statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric. Id., at 222-224.2”
Not provably false? Au contraire. Is “God hates fags”, provably true!? Just because something is written 2500 years ago by people who condoned slavery, treated homosexuals as abominations, women as subservient, believed in gods and demons, doesn’t make it true! It’s incumbent on the one making the statement that it's true. Prove god hates fags, because people are acting on those perpetuated myths! People do things in a god’s name. They get ideas from those that tout they are “messengers” of god. (Article next week on four deaths in Somalia). Being a free speech champion is clouded by their devotion to the fellowship of god.
“Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can "be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community," Connick, supra, at 146, or when it "is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public," San Diego, supra, at 83-84. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469,
Yes, it is a matter of public concern; but NOT to advance hateful lies to that end. The American Psychiatric Association among the rest of the psychiatric community has determined that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality and is not a choice. So where does that leave the court? Something the court has little notice of because they are six observant Catholics and three Jews. Consequently their judgment ends up clouded by their own petards.
One of the tenets for the Church’s dogma which reinforces this hate speech is Leviticus 20-13:
KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
To say the least, I think they have a conflict of interest and they all should have been recused. How could they objectively see past this? Decisions like this do nothing to advance humanitarian treatment. On the contrary, it perpetuates the colonialism from which we were founded, the discrimination, and rationalized injustice to man in the name of writings that are 2500 years old.
Leviticus---old school, American Psychiatric Association et al, new school. Why can we not wait for the latest electronic gadget and yet we fail to update our minds in favor of the latest scientific findings. It’s obvious why the court hides behind the first amendment here---they can’t concede this is an issue of discriminating hate speech because they would be admitting homosexuality is natural behavior and the bible is wrong.
There’s a different message when impressionable people are told a god says something---they believe they can act on it. And if they’re told that “god hates fags” in the name of a church, then they believe it’s ok too to hate fags. Decisions like this only reinforce this negative behavior. Just like others are told about jihad. Are things in a little different perspective now? This is how divisiveness is continued.
The court’s judgment was clouded by their flies thinking it’s a free speech issue and in their myopic perspective, never considered it’s about the Constitution’s natural, human rights. The zeal for free speech is obfuscating a human right which should take precedence. You decide if this decision promotes peaceful coexistence or is damning. It should be a matter of common decency afforded to those who want to observe their own rituals that the likes of hate groups can’t interfere with the peaceful rights of others; not to mention, indicting them for their behavior. Human rights come first, subjective laws come second.
No Flies
No comments:
Post a Comment