RubySoho
Winston
In Defense of Evil, for the Greater Good of Freedom
April 14th 2008 22:45
I have recently come across several posts detailing the exploits of that most loving institution, the Westboro Baptist Church, headed by Fred Phelps and consisting mostly of his relatives. Both Raven and SL have highlighted the rather deplorable beliefs and practices of this cult (for it is a cult in every sense). To reiterate, they have adopted the practice of picketing the funerals of servicemen and women who have died in combat, as well as picketing the funerals of anyone else who meets their rather loose criteria. All of this is done out of their belief that homosexuality is the foremost affront to God, and that America's growing tolerance for homosexuality is the primary source of the world's woes. We are all, in fact, doomed to burn in hell for our failure to render the streets red with the blood of every homosexual we see.
That's the general gist of the argument. They, the tiny, inter-related congregation of the WBC, will essentially be the only ones saved. Citing passages in the Bible that proclaim homosexuality abhorrent (as is shrimp, but they're not picketing Red Lobster) they continue to pilfer their belief that any culture that embraces it shall be smote by the angry fist of God. America is apparently the new Sodom and Gomorrah, along with most of Europe, Canada and anywhere else that pisses off the WBC this week. Part of God's justice, per the Phelps', is to drag America into a costly war and slowly kill off our men and women overseas. Hence why they celebrate and picket at those funerals, and mock the grieving relatives. In the collective mind of the WBC, those deaths are testament to God's righteous judgment. They are not trying to convert anyone, nor do they expect that America can be saved. They are simply proclaiming what they believe to be true. It is vile, ludicrous, and evil. It is also their right.
I hate to defend them in any capacity, as I think that being in close proximity to these people would make me physically ill. However, by defending them I defend myself and all of us. As long as the demonstrations are lawful (i.e. there is a minimum distance maintained, no one is being physically harmed, no one is impeding motion into or out of a building, etc.) then the Phelps' repugnant speech must be allowed. It feels so wrong to suggest this. Many people's first urge (indeed, my own) is to silence them, to legislate and convict and remove them from our presence forever. It certainly would not cause me any grief to see such a thing happen. I would be hard pressed to find sympathy for the WBC if I found out that the entire complex and its congregants had been immolated in a raging inferno. But that is not the issue. The fact of the matter is, our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for everyone, even for those purveyors of hateful views. The protests of the WBC do not amount to the same thing as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, and thus are not subject to the same restrictions. The same goes for the rights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi party, and other hate groups that continue to enjoy their right to freedom of expression.
As tempting as it is to rid ourselves of the toxicity of such sentiments, in the long run it would be the entire principle of the free exchange of ideas that would suffer. I feel strongly for the grief-stricken families subjected to the rantings of the Phelps'. But silencing the voice of dissent, however morally satisfying, would make a mockery of the very principles of freedom those deceased men and women enlisted to protect. By correcting one injustice we would unwittingly offer another. In our effort to offer aid and comfort, we would strike a blow against our liberties of expression and demonstration. We do so at our peril.
As I am not confident in my ability to fully express the dangers of limiting free expression, I am enlisting the help of those with greater power of expression than I possess. Here is what others have had to say:
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. ~George Washington
The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. ~Salman Rushdie
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire
Sometimes the greater good is served by defending our enemies. This is not about the WBC, or the Klan, or any other hatemongers seeking a moment in the spotlight. The right to freedom of expression trumps all else. When we deny it to those we oppose, our own loss of freedom looms blackly imminent in the distance.
That's the general gist of the argument. They, the tiny, inter-related congregation of the WBC, will essentially be the only ones saved. Citing passages in the Bible that proclaim homosexuality abhorrent (as is shrimp, but they're not picketing Red Lobster) they continue to pilfer their belief that any culture that embraces it shall be smote by the angry fist of God. America is apparently the new Sodom and Gomorrah, along with most of Europe, Canada and anywhere else that pisses off the WBC this week. Part of God's justice, per the Phelps', is to drag America into a costly war and slowly kill off our men and women overseas. Hence why they celebrate and picket at those funerals, and mock the grieving relatives. In the collective mind of the WBC, those deaths are testament to God's righteous judgment. They are not trying to convert anyone, nor do they expect that America can be saved. They are simply proclaiming what they believe to be true. It is vile, ludicrous, and evil. It is also their right.
I hate to defend them in any capacity, as I think that being in close proximity to these people would make me physically ill. However, by defending them I defend myself and all of us. As long as the demonstrations are lawful (i.e. there is a minimum distance maintained, no one is being physically harmed, no one is impeding motion into or out of a building, etc.) then the Phelps' repugnant speech must be allowed. It feels so wrong to suggest this. Many people's first urge (indeed, my own) is to silence them, to legislate and convict and remove them from our presence forever. It certainly would not cause me any grief to see such a thing happen. I would be hard pressed to find sympathy for the WBC if I found out that the entire complex and its congregants had been immolated in a raging inferno. But that is not the issue. The fact of the matter is, our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for everyone, even for those purveyors of hateful views. The protests of the WBC do not amount to the same thing as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, and thus are not subject to the same restrictions. The same goes for the rights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi party, and other hate groups that continue to enjoy their right to freedom of expression.
As tempting as it is to rid ourselves of the toxicity of such sentiments, in the long run it would be the entire principle of the free exchange of ideas that would suffer. I feel strongly for the grief-stricken families subjected to the rantings of the Phelps'. But silencing the voice of dissent, however morally satisfying, would make a mockery of the very principles of freedom those deceased men and women enlisted to protect. By correcting one injustice we would unwittingly offer another. In our effort to offer aid and comfort, we would strike a blow against our liberties of expression and demonstration. We do so at our peril.
As I am not confident in my ability to fully express the dangers of limiting free expression, I am enlisting the help of those with greater power of expression than I possess. Here is what others have had to say:
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. ~George Washington
The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. ~Salman Rushdie
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire
Sometimes the greater good is served by defending our enemies. This is not about the WBC, or the Klan, or any other hatemongers seeking a moment in the spotlight. The right to freedom of expression trumps all else. When we deny it to those we oppose, our own loss of freedom looms blackly imminent in the distance.
| 79 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
As much as I hate these WBC motherf**kers, these filthy pieces of ignorance, you are most righteously correct in saying that by smiting their First Amendment rights, we are only smiting our own freedoms.
What is sad to me is that this freedom of expression is not only challenged on a regular basis, it is challegenged by those who are supposed to be "on our side." I see a threat within the Al Sharptons and the FCCs of the world, the P.C. soccer moms & dads who rule the radio, TV, and written word. Even the special interest groups and advertisers who somehow convinced the FCC to allow Oprah the ability to say the word "clitoris," a very NAUGHTY word that just so happens to be banned by the FCC from the radio airwaves. It's a dangerously convoluted hypocrisy.
Mr. Winston, I will admit that I have not figured out all the answers to the more impossible questions, but at least I know some other fools are trying just as hard as this one. Kudos to what are hopefully somewhat like minds.
"The FCC's responsibility is to enforce federal obscenity laws. Even these laws don't define obscenity with a list of words or uses. Instead, material must meet three requirements to be considered obscene:
* Applying community standards, an average person must find that the material appeals to the prurient interest.
* The material shows or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by law.
* The material, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I agree with you Winston. I think people do abuse the concept of free speech to put forward a hateful agenda, but the world is full of idiots. As long as the smarter people counteract their idiocy with reason then hopefully it will all balance out.
Or not.
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
My best guess? The clitoris gives them the heebie-jeebies.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
also, id like to know why that college kid "dont taze me bro" was silenced for asking legitimate questions of a politician in a civilized respectful way when these "god hates fags" freaks can say whatever they want . . . why doesnt someone go taze them?
wheres the consistancy?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
What is it with homophobia and Freds? Fred Phelps, Fred Nile...
Go Morgan, I agree, taze 'em all.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Thanks for further highlighting some of the hypocrisy involved in opposing free speech.
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
As always, great insight into some really difficult topics. I look forward to reading some more.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Thanks!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
As for the "don't taze me" kid, that whole thing was ridiculous. He got a little excitable, and the security bungled the whole affair spectacularly. I prefer to think of that as more of an aberration than anything else, and the police who used such excessive force deserve to be punished for it. By the same token, when it became obvious that he was being removed, the kid's best course of action was to allow himself to be escorted out and then to fight the injustice of that in press. By the end, his struggling was only feeding the problem. Of course, in the heat of the moment I doubt that I or anyone else would think it through like that. Fight or flight instinct kicked in with both him and security, and the result was very regrettable.
On a personal note, in theory I would have no problem with the whole Phelps clan getting tazed to the point where they could power lightbulbs by holding them.
Thanks for the feedback
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I hate to think of those families being subjected to the foul presence of the WBC during the funeral of a loved one. But the danger of suppressing First Amendment rights is too great, even in these instances. This movement will die off soon enough. Damaging Constitutional rights as a short-term fix is an awful precedent.
Fred Flintstone was super anti-gay. Not everyone knows that, but there was some tension when Bam Bam announced that he just wanted to dance.
Thanks very much for the input!