Hate speech and the Constitution
If he contributes nothing else to society, the infamous Fred Phelps has at least forced us to further examine the notion of free speech. At what point does offensive expression become punishable under the law?
Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, which has gained notoriety over the past decade as a result of its practice of protesting military funerals with signs that read “Thank God for IEDs,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” and of course “God Hates Fags.” The group believes that our losses in the War on Terror (along with the suffering from Hurricane Katrina and from the economic recession) are part of God’s punishment for our tolerating homosexuality.
The Supreme Court will now hear Snyder v. Phelps, in which the family of a deceased Marine has sued for damages after Phelps et al showed up en force at their son’s funeral. Most Americans would universally and absolutely condemn the church’s actions. But should they be illegal? If the Court sides against Phelps, would that not open the door to further litigation and regulation of “unsavory” speech?
Truly, one of the law’s most difficult conundrums.
-Colin
Fish on the First, Continued
Stanley Fish followed up on his original explanation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC with an examination of three contentious First Amendment questions: Does money equal speech? Should corporations share our rights as citizens? And, where’s the line between (free) speech and (punishable) action?
Fish does little to provide answers to a frustratingly confused public. The bewildering ridiculousness of First Amendment jurisprudence is at once infuriating and beautiful, apparently…
[I]t’s an act of prestidigitation, a magical sleight of hand, a game whose rules are continually changing, a discourse that can reach any conclusion at all including one you would have thought impossible. It hasn’t got a principled leg to stand on, and yet it keeps moving forward and producing real world consequences. In short, it is an absolutely marvelous achievement, something to be admired as a wonder even when you are distressed by the content of what it has just produced.
-Colin
Fish on the First
Stanley Fish provides an interesting analysis of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Citizens United.
-Jake
Adding to the noise
Demagoguery in modern politics
In reaction to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission, Jake offered a nice analysis of the role of the 30-second ad in politics and mass decision-making.
I’d like to add to his excellent analysis a few reflections of my own, which I hope will complement his approach.
Jake’s concern is whether protecting television and radio ads as political speech will vitiate what it means to engage in democratic deliberation. Telling someone that X candidate is a danger to America’s prosperity through a rapid-fire advertisement likely to pelt the viewer with negative images seems more like manipulation that discussion.
But is the problem incendiary political speech or the avenues of dissemination? Read more
Senator Archibald Winchester is a fool! (message brought to you by Nike, Goldman Sachs, and the Teamsters)
Commercials, democracy, and Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission
What does it say about the legitimacy and viability of democracy if 30-second television ads, presenting clearly biased views of candidates, can change people’s votes? If democracy presupposes or requires a reasoned, educated populace, does the efficacy of television ads contradict this?
There are number of issues lurking here. First and foremost is the problem of how much time a rational, self-interested individual will spend educating himself on political issues, given that his vote will almost certainly not swing the election. How much time ought he spend, given his various other commitments and the limited amount of time in the day? We don’t talk much about the (civic) duty to stay informed and engaged. In the end, most people–independents included–don’t spend much time thinking deeply about politics. As a result, 30 second spots, repeated over and over again, can invade one’s brain effectively.
Banning blasphemy
A new law in Ireland can fine a person up to $35,000 if they publish or utter “matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.” Despite the undefined nature of “substantial number”, the law is a major challenge to free speech in Ireland. According to a Washington Post article, an atheist organization in Ireland is directly challenging the law by publicly posting blasphemous quotations from major religious and literary figures in history. We’ve written numerous times about the boundaries of free expression. Most likely there is a worthwhile line between free speech and hate speech, but has Ireland gone too far?
-Marc
Naked guy revisted
Remember naked guy who challenged our understanding of personal freedom and the boundary between public and private? Looks like a judge decided this morning that the case of Erick Williamson was one of indecent exposure. Naked guy is exercising his freedom, not surprisingly, to appeal.
-Marc
“Belief” in climate change
A judge in the U.K. has ruled that belief in global warming is protected under the 2003 “Religion and Belief Regulations,” which prohibit employment discrimination based on such beliefs. Tim Nicholson, a former “Head of Sustainability” at a British property firm, claimed that his termination resulted from disagreements about his environmental stances.
Lawyers for the firm argued that belief in climate change is “a scientific view rather than a philosophical one”, because “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.” Nicholson calls his approach “a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence.”
Confused? You should be. Determining what qualifies a personal “philosophy” or “belief” for protection under freedom of conscience regulations - particularly when such regulations are framed with respect to religion - is a difficult, if not impossible task.
-Colin
The naked truth about freedom
Should the government stop people from walking around home in the buff?
Public nudity became a topic of conversation worldwide last week when a 29-year-old Fairfax, Virginia man was arrested for indecent exposure after a mother walking with her child reported that he was naked and visible through the windows of his house. She claims he purposely exposed himself to them; he claims he was just making coffee and didn’t realize anyone could see.
Legally, what matters is intent, as the Washington Post article (admirably) discusses: “lawyers say the case…will probably boil down to a crucial question: Did Williamson intend to be seen?…It’s not the exposure itself that makes it indecent. There has to be some kind of obscene intent.”
Morally, not surprisingly, it depends. Read more
Religious Holidays for Everyone!
How much is too much?
Marc may have opened liberalism’s pandora’s box last week when he asked what, exactly, religious freedom ought to require. We began with a well-known dilemma: is it fair that in the U.S., Christians are unencumbered from observing their holy days (holidays and the Sabbath) but most minority religions get no such help? Should Muslims get Fridays off? What about time to pray during the work or school day? And if so, have we not begun barreling down a slippery slope of accommodation?
Christopher Hitchens vents here about a recent New York City resolution to add two Muslim holidays, Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, to the city’s school calendar. Mayor Bloomberg has come out against the resolution, arguing that a religion needs to claim a large proportion of the student population before necessitating a mandatory school holiday, and that if this trend continues for all religions, there will hardly be any school days left.
-
Follow us on Twitter
