Painfully Protected

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and their anti-homosexuality protesting at the funeral of a fallen soldier. The church believes that the soldier's death was God's punishment the United States' God "its tolerance of homosexuality". At question is whether or not free speech is protected during funerals.

In his editorial in today's New York Times , Alan Chen makes the case against that despite the onerousness of a message, that message should be protected as free speech. Mr. Chen states that the court should rule in favor of the church not to just protect their vile, hateful speech but also the "expression with which we vehemently disagree." He warns of the consequences that could take place if the court rules in favor the the soldier's family; such a stifling would "deter protestors of all political views".

Despite the heinousness of the Westboro Baptist Church's actions, their message, their choice of stage, I agree begrudgingly agree with Mr. Chen. Any type of speech has the potential of angering and upsetting someone. Political demonstrations, marches, pickets, all have the potential to create a charged emotional atmosphere. This right of speaking freely, about those things that you feel passionately about, is a protected pillar of our country. It is a quick slope into government repression of ideas if the Supreme Court rules against the church members. I think they are terrible, heartless, non-Christians and their message is only hateful and intolerant. Their protesting during one of the most solemn of occasions, during the funeral of someone who fought and died so that they might be able to do spew their vitriol is unforgivable yet their right to do so inalienable.

My resolution, protest their protest!