Snyder vs. Wesboro Baptist Church

"The issue is freedom of speech and of the press—i.e., the right to hold any view and to express it. It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle (1)." Ayn Rand was writing of the problem of defending pornographers' free speech rights, but her words ring true in this case as well. The actions taken by the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) are both disgusting and immoral. They are an affront to everything we believe or hold dear. The Con is absolutely appalled and offended by the filth and hate flowing from the WBC – and this is precisely why their right to speak must be protected. Freedom of speech is a worthless ideal if it is intended to protect only that which is popular. What need is there to protect the majority opinion? Rather, it the opinions that we find repugnant that are most deserving of the protection guaranteed by the constitution. Freedom of speech is ultimately aimed at protecting the rebels, the dissidents, and the heretics – those whose opinions would otherwise be all too conveniently silenced. The Con will maintain the following 2 contentions throughout the debate: 1) Free speech is essential to a free society, and 2) Freedom of speech protects unpopular speech. The Con proposes the following definition for clarity: 1) Military Funeral honors:"The rendering of military funeral honors is the ceremonial paying of respect and the final demonstration of the country's gratitude to those who, in times of war and peace, have faithfully defended our Nation (3)." The Con would also like to submit the following voting criteria: this should be a debate of ideas conducted in a logical manner. The rules of logic should govern the debate, and the winner should be the advocate who better demonstrates the logic of their position, as opposed to the one that the voter may be emotionally drawn to. Contention 1) Free Speech is essential to a free society. According to the US Dept. of State, "If there is one right prized above all others in a democratic society, it is freedom of speech. The ability to speak one's mind, to challenge the political orthodoxies of the times, to criticize the policies of the government without fear of recrimination by the state is the essential distinction between life in a free country and in a dictatorship. (2)" Every power that has ever attempted to dominate mankind has begun to do so by limiting who has the right to say what. The single most important weapon in the arsenal of the free man is not his might or his arms but his voice. The citizen who is not permitted to speak against a perceived injustice is a slave already. An ACLU Briefing Paper states: "Restrictions on freedom of speech always authorize the government to decide how, and against whom, the restrictions should apply. The more authority the government has, the more it will use that authority to suppress unpopular minorities, criticism and dissent. Because freedom of expression is so basic to a free society, the ACLU believes that it should 'never' be abridged by the government (4)." Contention 2) Freedom of speech protects unpopular speech. Civil rights leader Dr. Hussein Ibish writes: "It's not an intuitively easy concept to grasp, but the only freedom that really counts is the freedom to be wrong. If virtually everyone agrees that something makes sense, it need not be protected by absolute guarantees of personal liberty. It's only when an action or concept seems obviously and completely wrong, even immoral, to large majorities and social mainstreams that it requires a robust constitutional defense (5)." The United States was founded upon the principle of popular government – majority rule. However, from the beginning, our Founding Fathers recognized that unrestrained popular government would quickly destroy the individual freedoms that they had just fought to establish. The bill of rights was created as a check against the majority in defense of the minorities. And the first of the individual rights to be guaranteed against the majority was the right to free speech. Harry S. Truman noted: "Everybody has the right to express what he thinks. That, of course, lets the crackpots in. But if you cannot tell a crackpot when you see one, then you ought to be taken in (6)." Turning now to the Pro's arguments, my opponent contends that the right to protest should not overlap a right to privacy and to grieve. First, some facts for clarification. The protest was held as a lawful assembly in a designated area that was not visible from the funeral procession or the burial site (7). Albert Snyder, the father of the fallen Marine, was not even aware of the protest until he saw news reports after the funeral (7). Further, the right of a family to mourn privately ought to be protected; however, the right to protest against the government is vital to the conservation of our liberties and is guaranteed by the first amendment. Lance Corporeal Matthew Snyder was buried with military honors as directed by law. This makes his funeral, or at least those portions of it which were conducted at public expense, a government action. The Pro wants to convince you that the freedom of speech should not include the right to protest government actions, which is the entire point of the constitutional protection in the first place! Next, the Pro contends that it was the intention of the church to damage the memory of this soldier and harm his family and friends. However, he neglects to mention that the protestor's signs did not mention Snyder by name, and that the protests were directed against the nation and the military, not the Snyder family (8). Further, the lower court ruled in this case that the protestors stated beliefs and that no false facts were claimed against the soldier or his family (7). The Pro has not given us a compelling logical case, but an emotional appeal against the outrageous actions of the WBC. The Con completely agrees - these actions were evil, repugnant, and completely constitutional. As, ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro notes: "The First Amendment really was designed to protect a debate at the fringes…You don't need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with, because that speech will be tolerated. You need a First Amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable or outrageous or offensive — because that is when the majority will wield its power to censor or suppress, and we have a First Amendment to prevent the government from doing that (9)." A vote for the Con is not a vote for the WBC, but a vote for the very thing that makes America great, our dedication to the preservation of a free society upon the earth. I urge you to vote Con. (1) http://aynrandlexicon.com... (2) http://www.america.gov... (3) http://www.dod.gov... (4) http://www.lectlaw.com... (5) http://www.ibishblog.com... (6) http://www.famousquotes.com... (7) http://www.dailyfinance.com... (8) http://www.masslive.com... (9) http://www.npr.org...