[an error occurred while processing this directive]

advertisement

Sunday, May 19, 2013
June 06, 2006

Even hateful speech is protected

Few groups are as repellent as the antigay protesters who descend on funerals of GIs killed in Iraq, shouting their joy over the deaths. So it's no surprise that virtually all the politicians up for a vote on the national and state versions of the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act voted yes.

But let's indulge ourselves and consider a few qualms. All protesters, even loony and hateful ones, have rights. The reasonable restrictions are on noise and distance. Nobody has the right to drown out a ceremony or speech, so banning bullhorns and other noisemakers presents no problem. Distance is another matter. The track record of authorities and partisans on this is not good: excessive distances from abortion clinics to keep protesters from the scene and Secret Service regulations that keep anti-Bush protesters so far away from the president that they might as well stay home. The feminists protesting the all-male membership policies at Augusta National Golf Club were placed far from the club entrance, in a small gully where even reporters who were looking for them were hard-pressed to notice. This isn't respect for free speech.

The national version of the new law restricting funeral protests keeps demonstrators 300 feet away from the entrance to a national cemetery and 150 feet away from roads into a cemetery for an hour before and an hour after a funeral. But 300 feet away from the entrance, with another long distance to the ceremony, is quite a stretch. A few of the state laws mark the restriction at 500 feet, which seems clearly excessive. Has any American law ever kept protesters that far away?

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute thinks the national law is much too restrictive in banning "any picketing, any speech, the display of any banner, flag or the distribution of any handbill, pamphlet" etc. at funerals. He says even such nondisruptive behavior as carrying an American flag while mourning a soldier could be in violation of the law. The ACLU of Kentucky thinks that state's law is so broad that it makes it a crime to whistle or stop for a conversation on a public sidewalk near a funeral home. Illinois's law bans "hateful language" on signs near funerals, which seems unconstitutional.

The government shouldn't be in the business of deciding the hatefulness or nonhatefulness of speech. Laws passed in white-hot anger during an election year can be dangerous.

Posted at 02:00 PM by John Leo

John Leo
John Leo has covered the social sciences and intellectual trends for Time magazine and the New York Times. He is also the author of two books: Two Steps Ahead of the Thought Police and a book of humor, How the Russians Invented Baseball and Other Essays of Enlightenment.

advertisement

BLOG BACK

...Data Loading. (Requires javascript to be turned on)

RECENT POSTS

  • No context in 'They killed my baby!' journalism: Washington Post reporter Anthony Shadid is at it again. Shadid is the world's foremost practitioner of "They killed my baby!"...
  • Stem cell morals: Are social and religious conservatives antiscience? Many are. But resistance to public funding of stem cell research is not an...
  • Superman as Christ: The theme of Superman as a Christ figure isn't new, but it has never been stronger or more obvious than...
  • Blockading free speech: Columnist Paul Craig Roberts attended Stanford's graduation and learned something new: Back in April, President Bush went to the university...
  • Surprise! Boys are different: Wendy McElroy wrote a July 4 column strongly recommending The Dangerous Book for Boys, a surprise bestseller in Britain and...

JOHN LEO'S BLOG ARCHIVE

RSS FEEDS

JOHN LEO'S BLOG FAVORITES

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.