"The Fine Print", by Michael Schrader

EVEN OFFENSIVE FREE SPEECH DESERVES PROTECTION

(Written and posted 07 October 2010)

There is a very significant case in front of the United States Supreme Court whose outcome will determine whether we are truly a free nation or one that is following the path of the last great republic, Rome, down the path towards dictatorship and rule by decree and personal fiat. At stake is whether or not each an every citizen has a right to say what they want, regardless of how obnoxious it is, or whether or not an oligarchy of the elite can dictate to us, the people, what we can and cannot say. This watershed case is the case of Snyder v. Phelps.

For those of you who are aware of the story of Snyder v. Phelps, indulge me while I fill in those who aren’t. Phelps is the pastor of small Baptist church in Kansas. Phelps believes that we are a sinful nation because we accept homosexuality and abortion, and because of our sinfulness, God is smiting us by striking down our military personnel. According to Phelps and his followers, God will continue striking down our military personnel until we repent our wicked ways and renounce both abortion and homosexuality.

Since Phelps congregation is small, and it is in Kansas, it is challenging to spread the word of repentance so that God will stop smiting us; Kansas, after all, is not exactly a media Mecca. So, in order to promulgate the word, Phelps is like a modern day Jonah traveling to where the people are, except his Nineveh is the funerals of fallen soldiers.

The plan has worked marvelously. Where there is a published funeral for a fallen serviceman or woman, there are Phelps and his followers, holding up signs in the nearest public place screaming “God Loves Dead Soldiers” and “You Are Going To Hell” and other such offensive sayings. Inevitably, where Phelps goes, so to does the media, helping to spread his word throughout the land – “Repent and be saved!”

One of the funerals that Phelps tried to prophesy at was for a fallen soldier by the name of Snyder. This young soldier’s family was deeply offended that Phelps would stand in the public areas within visual range of the funeral services praising the death of the young soldier as a consequence of God’s smiting of a wicked nation; what family wouldn’t be? Here you are trying to grieve for a loved one, and there’s some nut job who thinks he’s Jonah celebrating the death? That would be highly offensive to me and to any reasonable person with an iota of conscience.

The Snyders then sued Phelps and the church, citing violation of constitution privacy rights (as established by the Berger court in Roe v. Wade), and won a sizable monetary award, which was subsequently overturned on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, with the protection of free speech rights as the justification for overturning the lower courts. The Snyders appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Looking at it superficially, this should be a slam dunk for the Supremes, as Phelps is clearly in the wrong and clearly invaded the family’s constitutional right to privacy, as established by the Supremes in Roe v. Wade. Or did he?

How did a small time pastor from a small time church in Kansas know about the time and place for a funeral over a thousand miles away in Maryland? Obviously, the time and placed for the funeral was publicized for Phelps to have known about it. If one publicizes an event, then is it really private? If one invites the public to attend an event by publicizing it, then can one really hide behind the cloak of privacy rights when members of the public that we don’t care for show up? If it were my loved one, and I only wanted a chosen few to attend the funeral, then I would only tell those chosen few; that is a private event.

Why publicize a funeral at all? If you want to let people know that a loved one that they may have known died, then why not publish the notice after the funeral? Do we tell total strangers about the funeral in the hopes that they will pity us and give us something? If I know that some nut jobs are traveling around the country and picketing and being offensive at the funerals of service personnel, why would I knowingly advertise a funeral and take the risk that they would show up to my loved ones? I know that I sound rather callous to the Snyders, but the Phelpses have been doing this for years and were already notorious for their obnoxious actions prior to the funeral, so why in the world would they advertise the funeral and then act shocked when they showed up? Was this some sort of “Bring It On” challenge to Phelps?

Phelps and his church are offensive and obnoxious; I will not argue that. Are they tasteless and classless? Absolutely. Do I think that they give Baptists a bad name? Absolutely. Do they have a convoluted view of God? Absolutely. However, decorum and taste are not the issue before the Supremes; the law is.

Phelps and his church showed up at a publicly advertised function and were in a public area, and they had every right to be there. It’s called freedom of assembly. They had every right to hold signs and speak. It’s called freedom of speech. If the Snyders had truly wanted a private ceremony, they had it within their power to ensure only those select few who they wanted to attend the funeral knew when and where the funeral was. Obviously, they did not, or a nut job from a thousand miles away would not have shown up.

I feel for the Snyders. Not only did they lose a young loved one, they also lost the opportunity to grieve for him in private because the time, date, and location of the funeral were made public for all eyes, even undesirable ones, to see. The Supremes have no choice but to side with Phelps, no matter how personally distasteful it is. And, God forbid, other families have to bury service personnel killed in combat, they will take every effort to keep the time, date, and location of the funeral private to prevent this from ever happening again.

BACK TO "THE FINE PRINT" INDEX