On freedom of speech - again...

I've been thinking a lot about freedom of speech lately. Yesterday, the US Supreme Court began to hear Snyder vs. Phelps, a case which has raised the issue pretty starkly over here. Briefly, Fred Phelps runs a church here in Kansas, and organises his followers to picket military funerals with signs like 'God hates fags', 'Thank God for dead soldiers', 'Thank God for 9/11' etc. Pretty gruesome.

Anyway, four years ago, Phelps and his gang staged a protest in Maryland at the funeral of a Marine named Matthew A. Snyder - not gay himself, but Phelps et al basically do things like this because they think America supports homosexuality, especially in the military (hmmm - not sure about that one, given that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is still firmly in place, but that's another issue). Understandably, Matthew's father was pretty aggrieved at this, and he has brought a case against Phelps, claiming that he invaded his privacy. It's more intricate than that, but they're the basics. You can read more detail here.

Part of the reason this has caused such a huge furore is because it brings into question the very nature of America's constitution. The First Amendment, which is oretty much sacred over here, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There are those, in this case, who argue strongly in favour of Phelps and his right to freedom of speech - including many pretty major news organisations such as the New York Times, for example.

As I have said in this blog before, I'm not sure where one draws the line on this whole First Amendment thing. Then I was writing about Pastor Terry Jones and his proposed Koran burning on the anniversary of 9/11, now it's some psycho who thinks that picketing funerals is an acceptable thing to do. The attitude of both men disgusts me - that anyone, particularly someone calling himself a follower of Christ, thinks it is acceptable to behave in such a manner seems utterly unbelievable. But, freedom of speech - if you don't allow them to have their say, where do you draw the line?

I pondered the issue even more after reading a slightly out of date edition of the Spectator recently. This was the 'Thought Crime Special', which included various articles bemoaning the current state of affairs in Britain, where, at the other end of the spectrum, one can get the police turning up on your doorstep for merely asking whether they oould distribute Christian leaflets alongside a gay march. Which is better? I'm not sure. I, like many of the Spectator writers, despair of living in a country where so many things are now prosecutable, and agree with Matthew Parris, for example, that "without intensity or pasion, few great political or philosophical causes ever prevail." There is a place for righteous anger, I believe - as long as it does not descend into spittle-flecked, foaming-at-the-mouth, hatred-filled ranting.

But if you ban the latter, you come dangerously close to banning the former, and that is where the problem lies. Do I believe that people like Fred Phelps should be made to face up to the inestimable hurt and damage they have done to innocent people with their placarding? Yes. Do I, as Voltaire might have said, "defend to the death his right to say it"? Well, I'm not sure about defending to the death. And I'm not sure he should be allowed to say it in public. But, reluctantly, I have to agree that freedom of speech can't always be quantified. What the Supreme Court will decide remains to be seen.