Snyder vs. Wesboro Baptist Church

My opponent frames the terms of the debate in his opening statement as follows: "Primarily, this scopes the right to privacy and to grieve vs. the constitutional amendment to protest under the First Amendment." However, when I, as the Con, adopt the stance that the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) near the funeral of Lance Corporeal Snyder, my opponent in responds by saying "The question of whether or not they have the ability to the 1st Amendment is not in question, so my opponent's stance is not a proper one to take in this case." Since the debate was framed and accepted as a question of the right to privacy against the freedom of speech, my opponent's suddenly moving the target is abusive. I ask you to disregard any arguments that follow this track. This debate was framed as a question of free speech versus privacy in the real world. The Con's position, as stated previously, is that the right to free speech is essential for the preservation of a free society, and that this right is most strenuously protected when the speech in question is unpopular. Next, my opponent in his rebuttal makes several contradictory statements that serve to undermine his case. He first states that "the right to freedom of speech is irrefutable and undeniable." While I appreciate the concession on this point, I would be inclined to disagree – there are clearly cases in which the government has the right to limit speech, however, the situation in discussion is not such a case. We'll return to this point shortly. Back to my opponent's contradictions, the very next statement he makes is to say that there are in fact some cases in which the freedom of speech should be limited. Pro, free speech cannot be both "undeniable" and denied in certain cases. I also refer you to the moving target mentioned earlier – that this debate is about free speech but not about free speech. These contradictions on the most basic points of contention tend to call into question the validity of his reasoning in this debate. My opponent misunderstands the importance of the fact of military honors to this case. Military honors refer to the ceremonial embellishments provided by the government that accompany a private funeral. The presence of government personnel on official duty as required by Federal law makes this a government action. The nature of the speech in question was a protest of governmental policies. The First Amendment exists specifically to protect speech that is critical of government policies and actions. Therefore, the actions of the WBC were clearly protected by the First Amendment. The Pro lists several Supreme Court decisions to support his statement that "There are, however, many cases that have questioned the freedom of speech in extenuating circumstances." I would like to look at each of these cases in more detail. New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964 – "The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity) (1)." With this decision, the Court set the standard that speech could not be restricted simply because it contains false statements. In order to restrict the speech, the plaintiff needs to show that the speaker made statements that they believed to be false when they were uttered, or with reckless disregard to the truthfulness of the statements. The standard applies specifically in libel cases. Since the WBC protestors were expressing statements of belief rather than fact, this standard of actual malice is not met, meaning that the protestor's speech is protected under the First Amendment. This case supports the Con position. Gertz v. Robert Welch, 1974 – the Court decided that private plaintiffs in defamation cases do not have to prove actual malice, unlike public figures, because of the resources typically available to public figures. However, the decision differentiated between false facts and false ideas. According to the Court, "Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas (2)." Since the protestors were expressing ideas rather than facts, this ruling also works to bolster the Con's position. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 1988 - in this case, the Court ruled that"…in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment. In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64 (1964), we held that even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill will his expression was protected by the First Amendment: ‘Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.' (3)." Once again, this ruling strengthens the Con position that the WBC protests were constitutionally protected. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 1990 was a narrow ruling that served mainly to reaffirm the Court's previous stances on the protection the First Amendment gives to statements of opinion. The court ruled "…a statement of opinion relating to matters of public concern which does not contain a provably false factual connotation will receive full constitutional protection (4)." Since the WBC statements such as "God hates f*gs" and "He's going to burn in h*ll" are not provably false facts, these statements should receive "full constitutional protection." The Pro failed to provide evidence for his claim that the WBC protestors "intended to maliciously damage the memory of this soldier." Malicious intent is a legal status, and such claims cannot be made without sufficient evidence. Therefore, this line of argument should be disregarded and considered dropped. The Pro fails also to provide evidence regarding "400,000 other funerals." Therefore, again, any arguments relating to other funerals must be disregarded and should be considered dropped from the remainder of the debate. My opponent has failed to articulate a position of privacy as a right, therefore this line of argumentation should be disregarded and considered dropped. He has also failed to articulate a right to grieve, therefore this line of argumentation should be disregarded and considered dropped. The pro has failed to answer the Con's contentions that free speech is essential to a free society and that free speech protects unpopular speech. This failure amounts to a concession of these arguments. This leaves the debate solely on the question of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. To win, the Pro will have to prove that the WBC's statements rise to a level that requires them to be restricted under the First Amendment. These statements are deplorable, but based on the evidence offered by the Pro, these statements are also constitutionally protected. The Pro has failed to make a logical case in favor of privacy or the right to grieve. The Pro has made contradictory statements, including an abusive attempt to reframe the debate. The Pro has provided compelling evidence in favor of the Con's position. My contentions have not been refuted. For these reasons, I urge you to vote Con. (1)http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org... (2)http://scholar.google.com... (3)http://scholar.google.com... (4)http://scholar.google.com...