For those of you who are new to Supply Side For Survival, allow me to introduce myself. I am the Economist's Apprentice, and it is my intent to offer net surfers a place where discussion of true economic principles is encouraged and appreciated. If you love liberty, this is your blog.
Recently an organization known as the Westboro Baptist Church has become notable for the cruel way in which they vocalize their opinions concerning homosexuality. Their intrusion into the most private moments of a family's life, namely the burial of a child killed in combat, for the purpose of spreading their message has ignited debate at kitchen tables and court rooms across the country concerning the limit of the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech.
The above video is relatively dated, however, it is demonstrative of the attitudes and behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church's members. Strictly speaking, it is not their beliefs or even the expression of those beliefs that is troubling; what is far more despicable is the license that these protesters are given to impose their presence on others. The first amendment reads as follows, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." No one is arguing that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't have the right to hold fast to its hateful ideology, the federal government does guarantee you the right to be ignorant if you so choose. But, there are certain aspects of the first amendment which I do believe render the prosecution and ultimate banning of funeral protests, specifically, very much feasible.
Firstly, it is an error to say that the first amendment covers all types of speech at all times and all places. For instance, if I were to stand outside your house, on the street perhaps, and scream obscenities with a megaphone at 2:30 AM, would I be breaking the law? Absolutely. If not you, someone else on the block would certainly report the disturbance to the authorities and I'm positive that my plea of "but what about free speech" would go unheeded. Even if we abstracted away from the type of speech and focused only on the context, the theory of unlimited free speech remains indefensible. Assume that the same time of night and the same megaphone are involved, but change the substance of my ranting from obscenities to a simple recitation of the alphabet. The fundamental problem has not changed, there are people trying to sleep and my unwanted presence is reported. At it's heart, the problem is how to privatize time. When you're sleeping, it is a forgone assumption that you have the right to experience conditions which lend themselves to resting. Legally speaking, you have an expectation of privacy. When that privacy is violated, you are given recourse through our legal system. I might have freedom of speech, but you also have freedom of peace in your own home and therefore have the right to take legal action against those who would disturb you. While it is true that funeral attendees do not flatly own the cemetery grounds, they do "own" the remains being laid to rest. They "own" the experience of completing one of the oldest traditions humanity harbors. They "own" the last memories of their loved one. If everyone possesses unlimited rights, then no rights exist. Westboro's supporters are more than welcome to freely express their speech and opinions at a location where there exists no expectation of privacy such as the national mall or a city park. They are not welcome to express their speech and opinions where such action would serve to diminish the rights of a deceased soldier's family.
Secondly, and perhaps more technically, the section of the first amendment which I call the peaceable assembly clause offers prosecutors a clearly defined medium through which to end Westboro's disruptive and abusive practices. "Congress shall make no law... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." Representatives of the Westboro Baptist Church are in fact the opposite of shy with respect to the promulgation of their intent. Their purpose, according to their own testimony, is to pray for and celebrate the injury and death of our nation's brave soldiers. This is, in my opinion, the very definition of "intent to harm", which completely undermines the idea that Westboro protests are "peaceable". You would, rightly, not be permitted to break a business owner's window during the course of a protest just as you are not permitted to purposefully inflict intense emotional damage to mourners in order to establish a political point. Again, the fact that the Westboro Church has the right to express its beliefs bears reiteration, however, for true freedom to endure it is necessary to realize that its rights to speech are in fact limited. Finding the boundary between the rights of different, often conflicting, groups is never an easy task; fortunately, I believe that the solution is already before us, having been written down by a group of patriots centuries ago. If both the letter and the spirit of the first amendment are heeded and enforced, I have no doubt that this nation, this greatest, most generous, most accepting of nations will move forward into the grand future our founders envisioned and will leave the small individuals populating the Westboro Baptist Church far behind, a dysfunctional relic forgotten by history.
Lesson 5 Preview: Why everything you know about public choice is wrong.
