Here are some of the questions and concerns the Justices asked during oral arguments of the Snyder v. Phelps case that will be decided this year:
"Do you think that a person can put anything on the Internet? Do you think they can put anything on television, even if it attacks, say, the most private things of a private individual?" --Justice Breyer
Justice Sotomayor was "trying to tease out the importance of whether the person's a private or public figure" because Albert Snyder went on the local news and discussed the funeral procession and his son before Westboro came and protested.
"The question is whether the First Amendment must tolerate exploiting this bereaved family." Justice Ginsburg
Justice Scalia pondered whether Albert Snyder could claim emotional distress because he went and found the "Epic" poem posted on the internet about his son by the Westboro Baptist Church.
Justice Kagan asked Margie Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church if a protester could follow a veteran to work every day calling him a war criminal in attempt to understand exactly where the line is drawn between free speech and harassment.
Justice Alito brought in the image of an innocent grandmother and whether she could be confronted at a bust stop outside a cemetery and be spoken to "in the most vile terms"about her grandson being killed in action.
"[I]f you recognize that there can be a tort of emotional distress in [in some cases], isn’t that, the factual question of whether it rises to that level of outrageousness, which is part of the tort for the jury?" -- Justice Roberts attempting delve into exactly what "outrageous" is and whether the initial jury decision for the Snyder family was proper.
Justice Kennedy expressed concern that by finding in favor of Westboro Baptist Church the Supreme Court would allow any group to follow any citizen around at any point and harass them. He stated, "torts and crimes are committed with words all the time."
As you can see, I only named 8 of the 9 justices as Justice Thomas continued his approximate 5 year silence streak on the bench during this oral argument.
These are all wonderful and extremely difficult questions; and that is how I will leave them for today, as questions.
You can listen to the 1 hour oral argument here. It is worth your time if you are looking to learn more about this issue: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=09-751
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
They're coming....
[Please refer to my prior blog, "Thoughts on Snyder v. Phelps case" if you would like a background of the Supreme Court case involving the Westboro Baptist Church. I am going to keep this short as I just learned this news and am still soaking it in.]
The Westboro Baptist Church is coming to Fargo to picket a school play about the murder of a homosexual student in Wyoming named Matthew Shepard (the play is meant to teach about tolerance) . So what is a guy to do? After taking a step back from my initial anger, the answer came to me: Meet them in a First Amendment battle of ideas.
I plan to picket the picket with my friends and other concerned citizens. Hopefully much to the disappointment to the Westboro Baptist Church I will be a flag waiving, proud veteran who supports equality for ALL people, and a 1st Amendment protected picketer of the picket. Read the links below and join the Facebook group if you want to protest the protest with me. Each individual standing against this hate makes a difference.
http://www.valleynewslive.com/Global/story.asp?S=14002437
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=29416942#!/event.php?eid=194025807291606
The Westboro Baptist Church is coming to Fargo to picket a school play about the murder of a homosexual student in Wyoming named Matthew Shepard (the play is meant to teach about tolerance) . So what is a guy to do? After taking a step back from my initial anger, the answer came to me: Meet them in a First Amendment battle of ideas.
I plan to picket the picket with my friends and other concerned citizens. Hopefully much to the disappointment to the Westboro Baptist Church I will be a flag waiving, proud veteran who supports equality for ALL people, and a 1st Amendment protected picketer of the picket. Read the links below and join the Facebook group if you want to protest the protest with me. Each individual standing against this hate makes a difference.
http://www.valleynewslive.com/Global/story.asp?S=14002437
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=29416942#!/event.php?eid=194025807291606
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Freedom of Speech & Press (or lack thereof) in China, Iran, and putting it in an Egyptian Context
I urge you first to watch this link from the Rachel Maddow show. At least watch the first 2 minutes and 15 seconds about what Chinese adolescents think about what happened over 20 years ago in Tiananmen Square. Their reactions sent chills down my spine.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#41398592
The image of one man blocking a tank, that we as Americans have grown up understanding as the iconic image of an individual standing up to an oppressive government, is an image that Chinese youth think is either made up or needs some kind of "context" to be fully understood. It is not because the Chinese citizens have chosen to forget those events in Tiananmen Square. It is because the government has taken drastic steps to make sure information does not get disseminated, to make sure the press is not free to report on government issues without the government's permission, and to limit access to the Internet (to name a minuscule amount of government's hindering of the free flow of information).
A similar tactic of "damage control" by the Iranian government happened after the historic protests in 2009. The Iranian government forced confessions from some protesters, making them say they were "rioters, looters, and terrorists" in order to make the people think they needed the government to protect them.
Without an independent media and without the freedom to speak your mind without fear of prosecution, there is no free flow of information; there is no advancement of ideas on how to better a society.
But Egypt is potentially different. Although Mubarak is doing what he can to initiate some form of "damage control" by sending in his own hired cronies to disrupt the previously relatively peaceful protests, it appears the power and will of the people have gotten to a point where no governmental action can turn them away from their natural want to be free.
Across the world we have seen oppressive governments spend immeasurable resources attempting to quell the people from being able to freely express themselves because the government fears knowledge will lead to chaos and to the end of their power. However, if a government truly wants to avoid chaos and truly cares about the future of their country, it will allow for the freedom of expression and will allow for the people to peaceably determine the future of their country.
In closing for this blog, I will defer to the far more eloquent Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment and the role it plays in our society (as well as the potential it can play in other societies):
"The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#41398592
The image of one man blocking a tank, that we as Americans have grown up understanding as the iconic image of an individual standing up to an oppressive government, is an image that Chinese youth think is either made up or needs some kind of "context" to be fully understood. It is not because the Chinese citizens have chosen to forget those events in Tiananmen Square. It is because the government has taken drastic steps to make sure information does not get disseminated, to make sure the press is not free to report on government issues without the government's permission, and to limit access to the Internet (to name a minuscule amount of government's hindering of the free flow of information).
A similar tactic of "damage control" by the Iranian government happened after the historic protests in 2009. The Iranian government forced confessions from some protesters, making them say they were "rioters, looters, and terrorists" in order to make the people think they needed the government to protect them.
Without an independent media and without the freedom to speak your mind without fear of prosecution, there is no free flow of information; there is no advancement of ideas on how to better a society.
But Egypt is potentially different. Although Mubarak is doing what he can to initiate some form of "damage control" by sending in his own hired cronies to disrupt the previously relatively peaceful protests, it appears the power and will of the people have gotten to a point where no governmental action can turn them away from their natural want to be free.
Across the world we have seen oppressive governments spend immeasurable resources attempting to quell the people from being able to freely express themselves because the government fears knowledge will lead to chaos and to the end of their power. However, if a government truly wants to avoid chaos and truly cares about the future of their country, it will allow for the freedom of expression and will allow for the people to peaceably determine the future of their country.
In closing for this blog, I will defer to the far more eloquent Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment and the role it plays in our society (as well as the potential it can play in other societies):
"The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)