(The following article is from DefendChristians.org)
This week the Supreme Court began its new session with its new Justice, Elena Kagan and a low 51% approval rating, according to Gallop. Front and center is a very controversial First Amendment case regarding the freedom of speech of a sect of Christians who engage in picketing military funerals. Rev. Fred Phelps and members of Westboro Baptist Church assert on large signs that the death of service men is the result of God judging America for embracing homosexuality. Their signs say things like, “Thank God for dead soldiers,” “Thank God for IEDs” (improvised explosive devices responsible for the deaths of many soldiers) and “God Hates Fags.”
Of course, people are infuriated with the messages. Some out of compassion for the grieving family and others because of the jarring messages about homosexuality. But does the First Amendment allow for such speech? Even if it’s legal, should Christians engage in this kind of activity? First, let’s consider the issue of the legality of their message. There is no absolute right to free speech. Conspiracy to commit a crime is not protected speech. You can’t legally incite violence, make terrorist threats or cry fire in a crowded theater. So there can be time and place restrictions on speech if there is an overriding state interest, i.e. the preservation of life. But just because a message is offensive [doesn’t mean it must] be censored. There is much that occurs in the name of free speech that many find very offensive. Pornography, blasphemy and vulgarity are considered protected forms of speech, even burning the American flag.
As someone who is an advocate for liberty, I hope that they rule in favor of protecting free speech and not limiting it in anyway. Why? The problem is with standards. Who gets to decide what’s offensive or not? Some people are very offended by the greatest message the world has ever heard. They are affronted that God calls all mankind sinners and that only by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ as their substitute can they be saved from the wrath to come. If I want to be free to declare the Gospel message, then I must be prepared to defend the right of others to declare their’s.
But, even if it is legal, is it ethical for Fred Phelps to do what he does? Most people would say no, based on Christian compassion for the grieving family of the service men. That is a very strong ethical argument, but there are other questions to consider. The fact is Mathew Snyder was a brave service man who gave his life to defend liberty for all, even Westboro’s. Others have effectively exercised their right to counter-protest the church, like the bikers that showed up at Arlington Cemetery for the funeral of a Navy Seal. So, is it right to use the occasion of the funeral of a “freedom fighter” to restrict freedom? Using a funeral to advance a message is undoubtedly provocative, but it has accomplished Westboro’s objective of calling attention to their message. Even the lawsuit against them has worked to advance Phelp’s propaganda. But, most people are scandalized by the funeral tactic, even those who oppose homosexuality.
But if you can’t picket military funerals, what other occasions might be deemed too provocative for free speech? Love and Truth exist perfectly within God. In today’s morally rebellious and spiritually confused world, God’s Truth, especially about homosexuality, is considered to be hate. Just because Phelps taps into fallen man’s resentment against God’s standards should he be silenced? Phelps may even be delivering a message in what some consider a hateful way, but last time I checked there is no right ‘not to be offended’ in the Constitution.
Satan would love to exploit the emotions this case engenders to silence God’s Truth; homosexuals can be and have been saved and transformed by God’s grace in Jesus Christ. Back in March of 2001, I was a pastor and on the local school board and fighting the homosexual agenda tooth and nail in our school district when a tragic shooting took place. Two students were killed and thirteen were wounded. In June, Phelp’s group came to town and picketed the school’s graduation. Westboro blamed the tragedy on the acceptance of homosexuality in California schools. Then, because I was on the school board, Westboro picketed my church that Sunday. I know first hand how frustrating it is to be the object of Phelp’s indignation. It’s ironic that I have been picketed both by homosexual activists and by Westboro Baptist Church, but I am glad for their liberty to express their views. Pray that God will keep the Supreme Court from limiting our ability to freely declare both the convicting Truth of God’s Law and the liberating Love of Christ’s Gospel.
So where should the limits lie? Discussions about freedom of speech often begin with a statement attributed to the French writer Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
(The following is taken from Wikipedia)
“Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas using one’s body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and is commonly subject to limitations based on the speech implications of the harm principle including libel, slander, obscenity and pornography, sedition, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements.
The term “offense principle” is also used to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense, or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws.
Despite the exceptions, the legal protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of American jurisprudence.”
(The following is taken from uscourts.gov)
The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”). Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”). Schenck v. United States,249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
(The following is an editorial by Gerald F. Uelmen, Dean of Santa Clara University School of Law)
At Emory University, certain conduct that is permissible off campus is not allowed on campus. Specifically, some speech and behaviors are prohibited in Emory’s version of what are derogatorily labeled “politically correct” codes but are more commonly known as hate speech codes. Emory’s code begins with its definition of banned behavior.
Discriminatory harassment includes conduct (oral, written, graphic or physical) directed against any person or, group of persons because of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or veteran’s status and that has the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating, or hostile environment for that person or group of persons.
Hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emory’s, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Others ban behavior that intentionally inflicts emotional distress. Still others outlaw general harassment and threats,” without clarifying what constitutes such conduct. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content. Private institutions, in contrast, are not subject to these decisions. Emory, for example, as a private university, can ignore public law rulings and draft whatever hate speech policy it chooses.
Hate speech codes raise important ethical questions. When [Hate Speech codes] are pitted against the right to freedom of speech, which does justice favor? Do the costs of hate speech codes outweigh their benefits? Is the harm that results from hate speech so serious that codes to restrict freedom of speech are morally required?
The most fundamental argument against hate speech codes rests on the idea that they violate a fundamental human right, freedom of speech. Such a fundamental right, it is argued, should not be limited except to prevent serious harm to others. Libel or shouting “Fire!” in a movie theater, for example, can cause serious harm and, therefore, are legitimately banned. In contrast, what campuses prohibit as “hate speech” is primarily opinion, that, while often offensive and unpopular, does not cause serious harm. The fundamental right to free speech should not be restricted merely to prevent hate speech.
Those who advocate hate speech codes believe that the harm codes prevent is more important than the freedom they restrict. When hate speech is directed at a student from a protected group, like those listed in Emory University’s code, the effect is much more than hurt feelings. The verbal attack is a symptom of an oppressive history of discrimination and subjugation that plagues the harmed student and hinders his or her ability to compete fairly in the academic arena. The resulting harm is clearly significant and, therefore, justifies limiting speech rights.
(The following is taken from GotQuestions.org)
Question: “Are Christians guilty of hate speech?”
Answer: A working definition of hate speech is “speech that is intended to insult, intimidate, or cause prejudice against a person or people based on their race, gender, age, sexual orientation, political affiliation, occupation, disability, or physical appearance.” If that is the accepted definition, a Christian should never participate in hate speech. However, the problem is that the definition of hate speech is broadening over time. Proclaiming that a certain belief is wrong or that a certain activity is sinful, based on biblical principles, is increasingly being included in the definition of hate speech.
Ephesians 4:15 refers to “speaking the truth in love.” First Peter 3:15 instructs Christians to defend their faith, but to do so “with [meekness and fear].” Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Colossians 4:6 proclaims, “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.” Sadly, some Christians fail to follow these biblical instructions. Some Christians (or at least people who claim to be Christians) speak the truth, but speak it in such a way that it is very hateful. One prominent example would be Westboro Baptist Church and its “God hates fags” slogan. Westboro Baptist Church is correct in declaring the Bible’s teaching that homosexuality is sinful, but they are declaring this truth in such a way that it is intended to be incendiary, offensive, and hurtful. Needless to say, the Bible does not support such methods.
It is likely that in the near future, governments will begin declaring more speech as hate speech, thereby making it illegal. In some parts of the world, it is illegal to say that homosexuality is a sin. In some countries, it is illegal to declare one religion right and other religions wrong. This steady broadening of what qualifies as hate speech could eventually lead to any effort to evangelize being declared hate speech, since it would be “hateful” to tell a person that what he/she currently believes is incorrect.
What the perpetrators of this expanded hate speech definition fail to realize (or admit) is that to tell someone the truth is an act of love, not hate. Is it hateful for a teacher to tell a student that his/her answer is wrong? Is it hateful for a building inspector to tell a construction company that they are building on a faulty foundation? Of course, the answer to these questions is no. However, that is precisely the illogic that is being applied to current hate speech legislation. Telling someone that his/her religious views are wrong is somehow hateful. Telling someone that his/her lifestyle is immoral is somehow hateful. The logic is not, in any sense, consistent with how truth is determined in other areas of society.
Acts 5:17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, 18 And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison. 19 But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, 20 Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life. 21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught.
25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. 26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned. 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
