Brown's office told UPI that the Governor opposes offensive actions by protesters, but acknowledges a recent 8-1 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Westboro's protest of the funeral of a fallen U.S. soldier, and feels SB888 violates that decision.
Westboro targets servicemembers' funerals because, in the church's view, those soldiers were fighting to defend a nation and culture steeped in homosexuality, and therefore doomed.Another reason for such protests is they almost guarantee Westboro a slot on the evening news and in the cable news channels' daily churn. For an otherwise inconsequential group like Westboro, this media attention is lifeblood. It keeps them in the headlines, and gives them fodder for lawsuits, several of which have proven lucrative for the organization. Clearly, Westboro has found its niche.
Brown's veto is not happy news for the CA Assembly, LGBT people and our rights organizations, the families of servicemembers, and those who beg for civil discourse. It's good news for Westboro and for civil libertarians who view First Amendment free-speech as sacred.I have repeatedly found myself in the position of decrying Westboro's vitriol while defending their right to voice and promote the message. I've learned a lot in the process, and have had a fascinating dialogue with members of Westboro even as we have publicly sparred. There are many ironies here, and I intend to explore them in a web/magazine piece I've been gradually efforting for a few months with Westboro's cooperation.
One irony? For all the hatred, profanity and denigration Westboro heaps at the feet of gays, they're often out-zinged by the antipathy and hatred gays lob back. Westboro says "God Hates Fags" and warns of an eternity in hell. Meanwhile, a number of my gay brethren actually ideate or advocate physical harm against Westboro members. "I wish you were dead" is not an uncommon thing to see directed at Westboro in a Twitter feed or a Facebook page.
Is it our role to protect society from the potentially poisonous speech of the few? In some cases, no. So says the U.S. Supreme Court in regard to Westboro, and I agree with their decision. Our First Amendment exists to protect the speech of the few from being suppressed by society. It's easier for me to embrace this when it's rights of Gays or Muslim-Americans whose voice is being silenced. It's more difficult when it's people shouting at me that I'm worthless, calling my church pastor a whore (as Westboro did) or making other inflammatory statements.
Gay kids harm themselves because they repeatedly hear statements like those of Westboro coming from the mouths of their parents, authority figures and peers. I view this as a problem. But I don't see gagging Westboro as a solution.
More in the longer piece. But I wanted to get a few thoughts out now. You are welcome to comment. If you do, your words may be referenced in the longer article.
Thanks!
I too agree Gov Brown's decision. It's not an easy call to make. I do think people in general (not just gays)should not give into the hate and vitriol that WBC spews. To fight back with such language only brings us down to their level. I realize it's not easy to ignore these people, but by giving them so much attention, we're only keeping their hate alive. If the cameras stopped rolling, if people pretended they weren't even there, would they eventually give up? perhaps
ReplyDeleteI completely understand your on this issue. Though I understand it, I don't agree with it. I grew up in Kansas and have had too many encounters with the Westboro Church members. I even attended The University of Kansas (the most liberal and accepting place in Kansas) where Westboro protesters frequent. The First Amendment is one we should hold dear to our hearts, but we should also think of human decency. It is common courtesy to either pay your respects to the deceased or leave it alone. When did it become "human right" to be cruel to those we don't know? I know, I know, "What about the rest of the world?" Right? Well if we continue to let people like the Westboro Church "do their thing" then aren't we just feeding into the hatred and cruelty we so despise? Now, I'm not saying we do physical harm to these people or completely silence them either. I personally found it interesting to see the humorous replies that people came up with on campus. I am simply saying we stop these indecent protests and let our dead rest in peace. Like I said before, there's human rights, and then there's human decency.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jose that the time has come to allow the WBC phenomenon to come to the end of its unnatural life. We know where they stand. We know that they won't change. We should withhold all responses or public (media) airings of their protests and opinions. As when air is withheld from a flame, they will sputter, fade, and eventually disappear into oblivion.
ReplyDeleteI admit I don't know much about the bill. I'm in Michigan, not California and haven't followed it all that closely (I find my life is happier doing my best to ignore the WBC when possible). But I must say I'm one of those people stuck on this issue...on one hand, protesting funerals is so sick I think it shouldn't be allowed...on the other, this country does protect their right to be assholes (those this is among the things I'm not sure the constitution was meant to protect).
ReplyDeleteI don't see a problem with a law requiring them to stay at a certain distances though. We've done that with protesters before. Legally they can protest but at a distance.
That all said, I think the best way to get rid of them is for the media to stop giving them coverage. As often as they're on the news they seem like a much bigger and more powerful group than they actually are.
US army? US troops? I think they should have used real porn pics.
ReplyDelete