A Letter to M. Arouet

Good Afternoon M. Arouet:

   In light of a case that was heard by the Supreme Court this week, I found myself thinking about you and something you wrote a long time ago.  In case you weren't aware, the Court heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq in 2006, whose funeral was picketed by the
Reverend Fred Phelps and a handful of protesters from his Westboro Baptist Church out in Topeka.  These so-called "Christians" turned compassion on its head by carrying signs saying things like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Death to Fags," and "Thank God for IEDs."  (Since you've been gone for nearly 225 years, there is no way you'd know what "IED" stands for; it's "Improvised Explosive Device."  You may wish to consult Emma Goldman or Alexander Berkman for a more complete understanding.)

   Now mind you, this was no isolated event.  The Reverend Phelps and his missionaries of miscreance have shown up at lots of funerals for dead soldiers.  Somehow the Reverend Phelps got it into his head that the good Lord is punishing America and its soldiers because of its tolerance for homosexuality. 

   In any event, the father of the dead soldier sued the Reverend Phelps and his church for a ton of money -- $5 million to be precise -- and won.  Then the award was thrown out on the grounds that when Phelps and his followers were accusing the dead soldier's father of having raised his son "to defy the Creator" and "serve the devil," they were merely exercising their right of free-speech.

   That's when I started thinking about something you wrote a long, long time ago.  If I remember correctly, you once wrote -- not as "M. Arouet," but rather as "Voltaire" -- I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  Have I got it correct?  OK, well let me tell you something.  For years and years -- ever since I first read your words -- I thought that you were right on the money; no one agreed with you more.  But now, I've got to tell you, I'm beginning to wonder -- wonder if you were 100% correct; wonder if perhaps there are times when we, as a supposedly civilized society, have the both the moral and the legal right to tell people like Fred Phelps to "shut the hell up"; wonder if some kinds of speech are not free, not protected. 

   Oh yes, I'm well aware of Holmes' observation that one is not permitted to "Yell fire in a crowded theatre."  And I know that there are instances and circumstances when hate speech is not free.  But what about this case?  Is it merely a matter of a bunch of loony-tunes exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to speak freely -- regardless of what anyone may think of it -- or is this beyond the pale? Do good taste and human decency have a role to play in all this?  For if they do, then the Reverend Phelps et al are guilty as sin and should be made to fork over a minimum of $5 million.  (Personally, I think $500 million would be more like it.)

   Now mind you, I am no Pangloss; I am neither an "optimistic metaphysician" nor a fool. I am, however, a staunch progressive who is feeling more and more troubled by the cascading swirl of ignorance, intolerance, and imbalance that is pervading modern American society.  Case in point, yet another "free speech" case: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 558 US 50 (2010), in which our Supreme Court held that "corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited by the First Amendment." Unbelievably, 5 of the 9 justices held that corporations are people, and as such, cannot be deprived of "life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness." What this has come to mean is that very, very, very wealthy people can now pump unlimited tens -- or even hundreds -- of millions of dollars -- ANONYMOUSLY -- into what we call "501(c)(4)" organizations in order to get the folks they want elected to office. Is it any wonder that so many political Neanderthals are on the verge of entering Congress? 

   Ironically, it would seem that the same five justices who sided with Citizens United -- determining that placing limits on campaign contributions is an abridgement of free speech -- will likely rule that what the Reverend Phelps and his followers have done is not free speech, and therefore actionable. Is this nuts or what?

  I've got to tell you M. Arouet: I'm really confused and upset.  My progressive instincts tell me that you are correct -- that we should "defend to the death" one's right to spew utter nonsense.  For "The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak," to borrow a quote from an anonymous source, ". . . is to support the rights of people you don't agree with."  Yeah, on paper and on some ideal plain, it makes a lot of sense. But neither Snyder v Phelps nor Citizens United v Federal Election Commission is on some "ideal plain." It is part of a real, increasingly nonsensical world where even Candide, Cacambo and Pangloss would throw up their hands in disgust.

   I wish to God I knew what the answer was -- how to balance the Constitution and compassion -- that which is legally protected and that which is utterly boorish.  Perhaps you could do me a favor and consult with President Jefferson. If you can't locate him, just ask your good friend Mr. Franklin; I'm sure he will know.  And if you can't get back to me with an answer, I guess I'll just have to settle for something else you once wrote:

   "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

   Thanks for your time,

    KFS

    ©2010 Kurt F. Stone

  

Comments

[Mike]

It is so nice to be in 100% agreement with you. I'm savoring it!

[Alan]

Since the relgious idiots are so sure god is on there side, lets bring back Salem witch dunkings; they shouldnt mind, since god is on . . .side god will intervene,

Save on a lot of court costs.

Did you see the Pastor's idiot laywer (also his daughter and her two friends who chanted some nonsense at the end of the press conference,

The charges should included stalking (they went out of the their comminiyt to specificially target the dead soldier)
and treason and incitment to commit murder.

If corpation are people then the CEO oF BP should be charged with negligent manslaughter and go to jail.

[Judi]

OK they cannot constitutionally ban these people ,but they can make them stand 2000 feet away. They did this at political rallies in New York(Bloomberg) and around the country when Bush was running

[Stanley]

In the immortal words of Sam Goldwyn [ I think?] "enough is already too much".

Great piece!

[Robert]

VERY,VERY WELL SAID

[Alan Weiss]

People waste so much time worrying about what others do. Do not mirrors exist?