God Hates Potatoes
On the 27th of last month, the Kansas City courts repealed a municipal ordinance which restricted picketing at funerals. Fred Phelps threatened to challenge the constitutionality of the law, which was put in place several years before his Westboro Baptists began picketing of the funerals of soldiers both locally and across the nation. Rather than putting more money in the hands of this Topeka-based hate group in a case they felt certain they would lose, the city reluctantly removed the ordinance. The news of this came only a few weeks after the ACLU announced its decision to represent the notorious Phelps cult in a case brought against Maplewood, MO for a similar ban, which I ranted about here.
To go off on a tiny tangent for a moment, I think the whole Fred Phelps thing is just dumb. For one, if my interpretation of the Gospel ever catapulted me to this level of discourse I'd seriously begin questioning the integrity of the evidence I was citing. And I don't knoow, maybe he's not even claiming to get his information on who's cool enough for the Holy Clique from the bible. Maybe Phelp's believes God speaks to him on a different level. But, personally, if God ever felt inclined to use me as his "buddy" on whom he could dump his ridiculous list of personal vendettas, I'd kindly suggest a heavy dose of Midol and a nap. It's impossible for me to take their claims seriously.
That doesn't mean we should treat this situation passively.
It's tough to put into words exactly how I feel about what's taken place in the legal world surrounding the Westboro Baptists because it's a conflicted anger. I know how strongly people feel about "free speech." Trust me, I feel equally as strong. However, contrary to popular belief, not all speech is protected under the constitution, nor should it be. For the sake of argument, I'd like to reference a different document-- one which is taken seriously, and referred to frequently, despite the fact that it's not legally-binding. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted on December 10, 1948, this document appears to be based off the values listed in our own constitution's Bill of Rights. But, for the sake of clarity and universal application, there are certain other restrictions and rights that have been added in addition to what most Americans deem "God-given." In my opinion, they should be applied universally, in accordance with the rest of the document. The final article listed in the document is one that I feel sums up the character of the declaration itself, and the needs and ideals of human civility in general. You can take this how you want, but I think if a list of rights is to hold any value, an amendment of this nature should not merely rely on being self-evident. It should be manifested as the closing statement; clearly defining the absolute application of the document and thereby binding the articles together into a complete structure as is done in the UDHR.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Since the argument will be made that "nobody takes the UN seriously," I'd like to point out that while our government certainly uses the UN as a pawn, and we, the people, understand that the UN doesn't have much influence over our lives, that doesn't detract from the overarching value or purpose of the words inscribed on those pages.
There is a saying that your right to swing your fist, ends where my nose begins. I'd like to point out the blatant flaw in this argument. If the obvious stated goal of swinging your fist is for it to come into contact with my face, than why should the right for you to swing your fist protected? Does having high hopes that perhaps it will miss contact with my face make the possible outcome irrelevant? Does having embarrassingly poor aim and missing contact with my nose invalidate the original motive?
Or let me frame it in a more accessible way. Do we have a right to drive drunk, so long as we don't come into contact with any other human, vehicle or otherwise personal property? No. But think about it. What harm does it cause if you manage to safely arrive at your destination? None. But it remains a dangerous situation where lethal effects are possible and is therefore illegal. There isn't even malicious intent present in drunk driving, usually. So your right to swing your fist does, according to the legal system anyway, end when you begin to swing your fist. In general, anyway.
Somewhere along the way we decided as a society that in order to protect our own rights, we can't speak out against anybody who misuses their own. I don't understand this rationale.
Maybe I'm just used to the United States being in support of preemptive strikes in the name of security, so I foolishly assumed that it would support a preemptive strike against whoever is swinging their fist and impeding on my security. I'm so naive sometimes.
It's a slippery slope to be dancing on, I'll admit, but I just don't see how blatantly racist, sexist, almost treasonous hate-speech of this nature (by which I mean protesting and advocating in support of the death and distruction of a specific group of people) can be protected based on the idea that it's political protest or anything else.
I don't know of many people in Germany who consider the prohibiting of swastikas as an infringement on their freedom of expression.
Just sayin'.
