Sidestepping from post-engagement cloud 9
Today, the Supreme Court is hearing a case between Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed overseas, and the Westboro Baptist Church, who picketed his son's funeral. (See the full story here)
The church is arguing that it is within their First Amendment rights to protest and vocalize their opinions on our country. The group has become somewhat notorious for picketing soldiers' funerals across the country, where they proclaim that God is punishing America for its acceptance of homosexuality, among other things.
Snyder, on the other hand, is claiming that this group harassed him during a particularly sensitive moment. Those who side with him are calling the group's actions "psychological terrorism."
I'm inclined to agree. I'm not the best advocate for privacy rights, but I don't support people who act with the intention to inflict pain.
But the problem here resides in the church's defense of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is, after all, guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Violence that results from actions of freedom of speech, however, is not covered. Hence the whole 'screaming fire in a theater' scenario. Did the Westboro Baptist Church members inflict physical violence on Snyder? No. But, emotional distress is very real; hell, people sue for emotional damages all the time.
Let's say I get into a fight with a friend. That friend says some mean, nasty things to me, and then slashes the tires on my car. I can legally have that person pay me for the damage to my car. The emotional distress is much more difficult to prove, but not impossible to prove. In Snyder's case, the emotional distress is likely much more obvious.
And here comes the can of worms.
If this case becomes about First Amendment Rights, and if Snyder wins--even though his case focuses on the harassment charges, not freedom of speech concerns--the Supreme Court will be acknowledging that freedom of speech has a limit. But where is that line drawn? Can they define it? Doubtful. Very doubtful. And without clear parameters, there are no guidelines for how far this limit can go.
What about those other, pesky clauses in the First Amendment, such as the freedom of the press? A Supreme Court ruling in Snyder's favor may suggest that the press is limited as well--best not write anything that causes too much emotional distress. And what would start as small (don't publish something could result in a defamation charge) could quickly escalate into much greater editorial censorship. Hear that, NYTimes? Stop covering those political scandals; you might hurt someone's feelings.
According to MSNBC.com, media groups (including the AP) are asking the Supreme Court to honor the church's right to freedom of speech, out of fear that a ruling in Snyder's favor will be another nail in the coffin for the First Amendment. And while the compassionate person in me wants the Supreme Court to slap the Westboro Baptist Church with harassment charges, the skeptic in me is siding with caution.