“Free Speech?”

I’m writing today about the U.S. Supreme Court Hearing in which Fred Phelps (I won’t dignify him by prefixing his name with his purported title.) will argue, under the guise of “free speech” for his right to shamefully incite hate at, among other things, anti-homophobia rallies and the funerals of dead US soldiers. (I recognize in writing this that I am commenting on a situation ocurring in the U.S. and not Canada, but I think it is fair to say that something this impactful occuring in any country merits consideration here in Canada.)

I had the unfortunate experience of witnessing Phelps and his congregation’s distasteful, nay, despicable “protest” signs on the news yesterday. (I won’t give them the satisfaction of retyping them so if you need to see them, you'll have to get googling.) Although it was disturbing, to say the least, I must admit that, in the end I am glad not to be ignorant of this – because now I can do something about it. After my immediate shock and disgust, I was left with one feeling and one thought.

I was incensed and I needed to act.

I stewed over it last night and this morning. I decided I could be furious about it for only so long – and then I needed to transform the visceral enmity I felt toward Mr. Phelps and his associates in to something productive. (Otherwise, I’d just be breeding hate, which, ironically is exactly what Phelps aims to do. No thanks.) So, I’m doing what I do best – procrastiwriting. I have many, many friends who would fall in the fiery pit Mr. Phelps has fashioned for all those who do not fit in his twisted version of the world. Actually, as an unmarried woman who lives in sin with her boyfriend in her very own “den of iniquity”, I’m probably on Mr. Phelps’ hit list.

But that’s not why I am writing today.

It makes me deeply sad to think that we live in a world where people will cloak themselves in a blanket of “free speech” so that they can broadcast their intolerant, vitriolic garbage in a way that is profoundly painful to other people, some of whom are grieving parents. I believe that free speech and the right to assemble are fundamental rights offered to each citizen. They`re also a privilege, and when Mr. Phelps and his associates denigrate the right of free speech in this way, they threaten the fundamental rights on which our democratic society is based.
Let’s be clear. This isn’t free speech, and it’s not even remotely plausible for someone to consider it such. Speech ceases to be free when it comes at the cost of another’s personal liberty. Speech ceases to be free when its intent is not to speak but to harass.

No, this isn’t free speech at all. It is speech that comes at a very high price, indeed – that price is our very own fundamental right to live freely and without harassment.

To call this free speech means to say that it’s acceptable to harass homosexuals, to violate their fundamental rights and the right of the families of dead U.S. soldiers to grieve without being harassed. Truly, calling this free speech means that it is acceptable to harass anyone. Calling this free speech, demeans the very principle itself.

So let’s call it what it is – harassment.

We are fortunate to live in a tolerant, accepting society, where we are able to live and express our views freely – and we have a duty to uphold that. We don’t have a duty to uphold harassment, which, the last time I looked, was a crime.





Editors note: Ghandi said that "intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause." Me thinks Mr. Phelps doth intolerantly protest too much.