2008 Woodie Awards
Ignore hate speech instead of perpetuating it
Issue date: 11/15/07 Section: Letters to the Editor
- Page 1 of 1
The issue at stake in the editorial "First Amendment protects even the vilest of speech" is not whether hate speech is allowed, but whether hate speech is allowed everywhere, and at which times. The Journal would do well to note that the court case to which the editorial refers took place in civil court. When the Constitution is interpreted, it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will not and should not hear this case.
The lawsuit was for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit was not based on the fact that the family disagrees and does not reflect an opinion of the court. The question is not whether the WBC should be allowed to preach, but whether they should be allowed to protest a funeral in such a manner. Free speech is allowed, but the type of free speech they engaged in that day was specifically designed to cause emotional distress to a specific group of people. It was not an expression of opinion, but a verbal assault. Verbal assault is not protected under the First Amendment.
I agree that hate speech should be allowed, but I disagree that it should be allowed everywhere at all times. Furthermore, if we followed The Journal's advice to "defy them, screaming if need be, making sure our voices are just as loud" we wouldn't be eliminating any hate speech - we'd be spawning it. I believe that the correct way to counter hate speech is by ignoring it. Let's just not respond to ridiculous accusations. That's how they teach you to deal with a bully: if you fight back, both parties are guilty of violence; if you allow the bully to have his go, you are innocent and those in charge will reward you. In this case, those in charge are the people of America. Since most of America agrees with the non-haters, we should be just fine.
Andrew Roberts
Junior, Psychology
The lawsuit was for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit was not based on the fact that the family disagrees and does not reflect an opinion of the court. The question is not whether the WBC should be allowed to preach, but whether they should be allowed to protest a funeral in such a manner. Free speech is allowed, but the type of free speech they engaged in that day was specifically designed to cause emotional distress to a specific group of people. It was not an expression of opinion, but a verbal assault. Verbal assault is not protected under the First Amendment.
I agree that hate speech should be allowed, but I disagree that it should be allowed everywhere at all times. Furthermore, if we followed The Journal's advice to "defy them, screaming if need be, making sure our voices are just as loud" we wouldn't be eliminating any hate speech - we'd be spawning it. I believe that the correct way to counter hate speech is by ignoring it. Let's just not respond to ridiculous accusations. That's how they teach you to deal with a bully: if you fight back, both parties are guilty of violence; if you allow the bully to have his go, you are innocent and those in charge will reward you. In this case, those in charge are the people of America. Since most of America agrees with the non-haters, we should be just fine.
Andrew Roberts
Junior, Psychology
Be the first to comment on this story