Supreme Court Protects Free Speech

The media approaches stories from the wrong perspective on a consistent basis. Yes, I understand they sensationalize in order to sell newspapers or more appropriately to increase advertising hits on their websites.

But emphasis needs to be paid to the substance of this story and not resort to the yellow journalism approach.

Case in point. Yesterday the Supreme Court in an 8-1 vote protected the rights of free speech in this country. I applaud that. I’ve been a member pf the ACLU for almost as long as I can remember. I believe firmly in the right to free speech. To be able to evoke public dissent to the policies of our country or to show open disdain for hate groups and evangelicals of ignorance. In turn we have to protect their right to be idiots too. It’s only fair.

That is where the emphasis should lie. The Supremes opted on the side of Americans to speak out freely.

Not “Court OKs anti-gay protests at GI funerals

It sends the wrong message.

Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter and I somehow believe he drew the short straw for the right to denounce the actions of “Rev” Fred Phelps and his family cult of lunatics at the Westboro Baptist Church. Phelps we know is a nutbag. He doth protest too much (Literally). He also stands fiercely against all religions except his own. (I think he needs to be against just one more to own the whole collection). Oddly enough he is against racism. (I think Hitler liked dogs didn’t he?)

The public needs to continue counter-protesting Phelps and his not-so-merry band of wackadoodles at every turn. Smother their message of hate with words of mirth and joy. Make them completely irrelevant and synonymous with feces.

Someday someone will be walking down the sidewalk in Paris and say, “Oh Damn! I got some dog Phelps on my shoe.”

The Supreme Court yesterday guaranteed every American’s right to speak up.

In honor people should gather in front of Phelps’ church and protest.

Phelps should read Matthew 6!”
“Phelps should read Matthew 6!…”

lolz

Advertisements

About NoSacredCow

Irreverent atheist, skeptic, independent voter, social liberal, fiscal conservative, music lover, avid reader, engager in ruthless repartee, just an extra in somebody else's movie...
This entry was posted in Atheism, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Supreme Court Protects Free Speech

  1. I really don’t understand so-called freethinkers who believe in stifling offensive speech. If we don’t allow speech that offends us, then what’s the point of free speech? Would we only allow speech that we agree with? It’s ridiculous.

  2. Paradigm says:

    “Smother their message of hate with words of mirth and joy. ”

    In the name of free speech I find counter-protests dubious. Say what you want but don’t disrupt a demonstration held by others.

    • NoSacredCow says:

      So Neo Nazi groups, the KKK and Muslim or Christian fundamentalists
      groups should be allowed to freely march and no one should offer a dissenting view? Otherwise the media reports only one side.
      That’s tantamount to tacit approval.
      I seem to remember conservatives crying about that during the anti-vietnam marches in the late 60’s and early 70’s. That only the hippies were being heard.

  3. Paradigm says:

    You can have your say without disrupting their rallies. That is in no way tacit approval. That’s just respect for free speech. I don’t know how the situation was during the Vietnam war, but all sides should be heard – that’s what free speech is all about.

    • NoSacredCow says:

      I know how the situation was during the Vietnam War and I participated in protests then. I have also participated in counter-protests since. (See my previous post on Westboro.) You

        can

      counter-protest peacfully. Most cities and states have rules separating the two groups to opposites sides of the street. Sometimes government takes advantage of the rules by designating protest areas far away from an event or the media in order to promote a specific agenda. (takes the G8 conferences for example)
      Getting back to Westboro and Phelps’ message of hate. When I said “Smother their message” it means to overpower their message with a more sensible one. In the this case, show the world how ridiculous Phelps’ message is by making fun of it. It doesn’t mean shouting them down. They still get their say, we just show how ignorant their say is. (But the facts are Phelps’ group is only about publicity. They make money through lawsuits by provoking confrontation with those of an opposing viewpoint, by advertising hits on their website and the donations of bigots.)

      As I said in my post I applaud the the Supreme Court ruling because it even protects the free speech of the blessedly ignorant.

  4. Paradigm says:

    Well, if it is as peaceful as you claim I guess I’m ok with it. I know here in Sweden it usually ends in violence. Counter-protesters generally bring weapons too so their intent is clear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s