Agreeing with Alito, and so on
I hate it when I agree with conservatives: in this instance Justice Alito dissenting in Snyder v. Phelps. The nature of the Supreme Court is that it can't say "we're sorry," for example, for a succession of blatantly pro-business and pro-reactionary decisions over the past year or two. Some observers have seen, in the Court's recent decisions, a reaction to justified criticism that the court had moved too far to the right. Now, they are inhaling helium, apparently.
OK, we get it, you're sorry, and you don't have a case involving corporate campaign finance or the Second Amendment that would let you overturn the previous decisions and stay on topic.
But Alito is right: the speech of the Westboro scum isn't free speech or protected speech. It is "fighting words" under the laws of many states, Massachusetts among them. That is, it's a verbal provocation so strong that when someone swings on the provoker, the provoker and not the provokee is liable to be charged with assault.
I can testify that Westboro deals in fighting words, and screams, and flying spittle, because I have been close enough to them to experience all of that. I had to leave the final Beacon Hill gay rights demonstration in 2004 because of it. Because I had crossed the line into blind, red rage, which really is nearly blind and very red. Had I had to listen to it for one additional minute I would have done my damnedest to kill the nearest one to me. I wish this was an exaggeration.
This group has stated that they are emboldened by the decision. I don't think it will be long before the Court gets the chance to regret this overreaction, because it will not be long before the fighting words have their intended result. If so, may it be in a "fighting words" state. The stock Westboro defence has been to threaten to sue any community if they are subjected to violence in it. But if they are found culpable of uttering fighting words, they may be the ones out of luck. I'm taking bets.
Have you seen the details of the hilarious Texas immigration bill? Hypocrisy is the common currency of reactionaries everywhere, but it seems like the pee--er, tea-- party is out to monopolise the commodity. Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, a Republican, said of the bill's gaping exception, ignoring those who hire unauthorized immigrants for the purpose of obtaining labor or other work performed exclusively or primarily at a single-family residence, ''With things as they are today, [Republican state Rep. Debbie Riddle's] bill will see a large segment of the Texas population in prison."
And the problem with that would be?
OK, we get it, you're sorry, and you don't have a case involving corporate campaign finance or the Second Amendment that would let you overturn the previous decisions and stay on topic.
But Alito is right: the speech of the Westboro scum isn't free speech or protected speech. It is "fighting words" under the laws of many states, Massachusetts among them. That is, it's a verbal provocation so strong that when someone swings on the provoker, the provoker and not the provokee is liable to be charged with assault.
I can testify that Westboro deals in fighting words, and screams, and flying spittle, because I have been close enough to them to experience all of that. I had to leave the final Beacon Hill gay rights demonstration in 2004 because of it. Because I had crossed the line into blind, red rage, which really is nearly blind and very red. Had I had to listen to it for one additional minute I would have done my damnedest to kill the nearest one to me. I wish this was an exaggeration.
This group has stated that they are emboldened by the decision. I don't think it will be long before the Court gets the chance to regret this overreaction, because it will not be long before the fighting words have their intended result. If so, may it be in a "fighting words" state. The stock Westboro defence has been to threaten to sue any community if they are subjected to violence in it. But if they are found culpable of uttering fighting words, they may be the ones out of luck. I'm taking bets.
Have you seen the details of the hilarious Texas immigration bill? Hypocrisy is the common currency of reactionaries everywhere, but it seems like the pee--er, tea-- party is out to monopolise the commodity. Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, a Republican, said of the bill's gaping exception, ignoring those who hire unauthorized immigrants for the purpose of obtaining labor or other work performed exclusively or primarily at a single-family residence, ''With things as they are today, [Republican state Rep. Debbie Riddle's] bill will see a large segment of the Texas population in prison."
And the problem with that would be?
Labels: free speech, immigration bill, Samuel Alito, Snyder v. Phelps, Texas
posted by Uncle | 16:39
2 Comments:
The ruling was confusing, as you note. I thought case law from the Supremes and lower federal courts has excluded both fighting words and the shouting Fire! in a crowded theater variation. Fr(i)ed Phelps and his minions should the rights to publish inane, hateful pamphlets, but striving to inflame those at funerals does seem to cross clearly over into intentional harm to others.
I've only seen them up-close when we were entering and leaving The Laramie Project play night at the Boxborough schools. They were a rag-tag clump in the rain largely ignored by the students and adults. As it should be.
That's why I so hate agreeing with Alito, who seems to suggest excluding fighting words from this debate is excessively wrong-headed. Not to pound it in, but if their words don't meet that standard, nothing does.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home