Why Fred Phelps's Free Speech Rights Should Matter to Us All
The first time I saw those signs, with their vivid neon colors and crude images of stick figures, was 16 years ago. "Fags Die, God Laughs." "No Tears for Queers." "God Hates Fags." Like most people seeing a Westboro Baptist Church picket for the first time, I was shocked, then outraged. It happened at the funeral of a friend who had died of AIDS. Seeing those signs left me in tears.
I came out in the early 90's in Lawrence, Kansas, just 25 miles from the home of Fred Phelps and his followers. As I became increasingly involved in local lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender activism, I started seeing the Westboro picketers on a regular basis. They showed up anytime we put on an event and sometimes at completely incongruous ones — the annual production of The Nutcracker in Topeka, for example. In 1994 they traveled to my Arkansas hometown to protest at the funeral of President Clinton's mother. My mom called me, asking, "Who on earth are these crazy people from Topeka?"
Phelps was mainly known locally in those days but his views eventually started getting more national attention. He grabbed broader notice in 1998 after Matthew Shepard was brutally killed in an anti-gay hate crime in Wyoming. Shepard's murder garnered national attention and Westboro's picketers showed up at the funeral, shocking and upsetting thousands of mourners. So I wasn't at all surprised a few years ago when Phelps and his followers began picketing at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq, nor was I surprised at the hurt and fury his presence at these heartbreaking moments caused to those who had just lost loved ones. I understood firsthand how they felt.
Many years after first seeing those signs, I started working at the American Civil Liberties Union. One of the things that becomes clear as you look at the ACLU's work over the years is that government censorship has long been used to silence unpopular minorities, including LGBT people. The ACLU's first gay rights case was in 1936, when we defended the play The Children's Hour after it was banned in Boston because of its "lesbian content." From our defense of a San Francisco publisher and bookstore owner who was charged with printing and selling indecent books for releasing Alan Ginsberg's Howl, to our case just last year standing up for the right of students at a public high school in Florida to wear rainbow t-shirts or the one this year defending Constance McMillen's right to take her girlfriend to her senior prom, we have successfully fought back when government has sought to silence LGBT people. We would have never been able to make the tremendous progress we have made in the struggle for LGBT equality without being able to talk openly about what it means to be who we are. Who can doubt that had it been up the government in the 1950's — or to many state governments today — we wouldn't be able to come out at all.
It's because you simply can't blindly trust the government with the power to censor that the First Amendment grants all Americans, regardless of their views, the right to express themselves. The ACLU has defended the free speech rights of many types of groups, from the International Society for Krishna Consciousness to the KKK. We don't do that because we agree with either. We do it because we believe in the principle, and because we realize that once you chip away at one person's rights, everyone else's are at risk. It's because of this that the ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday about an appeal being brought by Westboro Baptist Church. The appeal comes after a federal jury awarded $10.9 million (which the judge later reduced to $5 million) to the father of Matthew Snyder, a Marine whose funeral was picketed by Westboro Baptist Church. In the brief, we pointed out that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech guarantees that no one can be found liable for merely expressing an opinion about a matter of public concern, regardless of how hurtful those opinions might be.
I can imagine the pain and the anger that Matthew Snyder's family felt upon seeing those signs. Those feelings are real and valid, and I feel nothing but sympathy for that family's suffering. But free speech doesn't belong only to those we agree with, and the First Amendment doesn't only protect speech that is tasteful and inoffensive. In fact, it is in the hard cases that our commitment to the First Amendment is most tested and most important. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."
In this case, we believe that the jury verdict violated First Amendment principles that protect the free speech rights of everyone. We want to protect those principles, which have always been essential to the advancement of civil rights, including the civil rights of LGBT people. Allowing Fred Phelps to speak his mind may be difficult, but chipping away at one of the fundamental principles on which our country was founded is far, far worse for all of us in the long run.









Oct 7th, 2010 at 4:16pm
Chilon von Sparta; can I piss you, and call it Free Speech?
Oct 7th, 2010 at 5:32pm
There is no freedom to categorically and systematically harass. Harassment crosses the line of the boundary of free speech and should not be tolerated.
Oct 8th, 2010 at 10:04am
Either the Bill of Rights applies to everybody or to nobody. It applies even to despicable, hate-filled morons. Bravo, ACLU -- it's why I've been a member for over 20 years.
Oct 10th, 2010 at 8:59pm
Why won't this site accept comments...not even submitted for vetting?
Oct 21st, 2010 at 5:31pm
I agree-why won't this site accept comments?
Oct 21st, 2010 at 5:42pm
I'm with Curmudgeon.
Oct 21st, 2010 at 5:43pm
If you're going to suspend his rights based on the weak excuse of "harassment",
Oct 21st, 2010 at 5:44pm
then you'll have to arrest every other protest group and cadre of picketers in the future, because the very nature of a protest or picket is to harass.
Oct 21st, 2010 at 5:45pm
Yet protest and picket is perfectly legal and protected speech. So, I'm sorry, but these guys are well within their rights.
Oct 21st, 2010 at 5:46pm
That's not to say they aren't repugnant and horrible people, but that is no basis to suspend the BoR.
Oct 21st, 2010 at 5:53pm
BTW @1: False equivalency. Pissing on someone would be on the level of punching them--which is physical assault, which is illegal. Verbal pissing =/= phyical pissing or assault. The ACLU wouldn't be defending them if they were committing assault instead of legal protest.
Oct 21st, 2010 at 5:58pm
BTW, people, tho they don't specify it, the criteria for posting appears to be a very tiny post size.
Nov 17th, 2010 at 3:27pm
Enough people who find Fred Phelps and his hateful group could show up that his group would be insignificant.
Post new comment