In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church (shown above), the freedom of speech is used to the point where politeness has no meaning whatsoever. These followers actively hold signs in public places that say, "GOD HATES FAGS" and "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL". Obviously for very actively religious Christians and Catholics, the words,"YOU'RE GOING TO HELL", would not sound very pleasing or reassuring. The WBC holds many unique, but offensive views such as:
1) God hates homosexuals and they were deliberately put in the world to be punished
2) religious priest rape young children
3) 9-11 was a direct unleash of God's wrath and the ones who died during the bombings were sinners that God himself picked
These are only a couple of the "unique" views the WBC has. The WBC has every right to hold their own views and opinions; however, the way they exercise their power is too extreme. They openly criticize the views of other religious groups when it is not necessary. Other people of other religious groups never criticized or mocked the WBC for their views the way the WBC did. What gives the WBC the right to do so? Homosexuals, who have every right to hold their own views, are obviously deeply offended by hearing these words. To them, it's almost seems a discriminatory since the WBC specifically targets and criticizes them especially. These people even go to the point where they raise their children to hold these type of negative views from early ages. If these children were to develop highly racist, sexist, or discriminating views, it could be very possible they could grow up to become future criminals or terrorists. Children must at least be raised in a manner where they can at least respect and understand the various beliefs and ideals of other people rather than believe that their method is always superior.
The members of the WBC were announcing in a public area where other passersby could easily hear what they say. In the video (Significant Minority), a police officer politely told the group that their actions were causing public alarm and annoyance. Although First Amendment Lawyer Floyd Abrams stated that public alarm wasn't a big enough justification for limited freedom of speech, the officer's statement did relate to the whole idea of public safety. Clashing beliefs could lead to conflict or fighting among the two sides. In these cases, where the safety of other people are also put at risk, the police are allowed to regulate situation for safety reasons.
Freedom of speech is a power that can be both beautiful and assuring, yet dangerous and wicked at the same time. In can inspire both good things and bad. It's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. It is impossible to stop what has already been done; however, it is possible to amend, and alter, and regulate it for the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment