Sign In
Free Newsletter
Human values versus rule of law
The anguished expression of Albert Snyder on the front page of the Oct. 7, 2010, Baltimore Sun tells several stories — the father of a 20-year-old son killed in Iraq on March 3, 2006; a funeral that became a public spectacle; a group’s take on why men and women like Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder should die; and, the center of a public debate over the limits of Free Speech.
Mr. Snyder’s tempered words and conduct reflect his discomfort with the media spotlight in this controversy. The hateful activities of the Westboro “congregation” (approximately 40 in number, mostly the family of George W. Phelps Jr.) reflect a different agenda, an agenda that is now proceeding through the Supreme Court.
Lance Corporal Snyder apparently died in Iraq because God hates his country, his parents are divorced, and almost anyone who disagrees with the Phelps family, including those bothersome Jews, queers and fornicators, should be punished by death. It makes for a good storyline and plenty of attention: Human Values versus Rule of Law.
As is always the case in a media circus, the pundits have rushed to the microphone. A professor at the University of Richmond opines with academic objectivity that “the First Amendment is something that’s so critical that it may, in this case, trump behavior that most people feel is pretty outrageous.” Our reaction to this insightful observation is that “most people” would be everyone outside the Phelps clan; their despicable words and acts cannot be excused by any definition of human decency.
Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA, who weighed in with an amicus brief as well as media commentary, portrays the signage and online attacks as nothing more than “rude comments about the recently deceased.” Other pundits defend the Phelps’ rights to Free Speech through comparisons with Vietnam-era protests. The comparisons are misplaced. Even though Presidents were hanged in effigy, flag burning was a ritual, priests tossed blood on government property and some greeted returning “Baby Killer” veterans with spit, the conduct was less provocative. The Phelps event was more personal, a family funeral. It targeted the grieving family of a dead Marine in an era when the public no longer blames the combatant. More importantly, there is no “public debate” on whether God killed Lance Corporal Snyder as punishment for our behavior.
That said, it is easy to react with equal venom, beginning with the character of a disbarred, dysfunctional lawyer who would abuse good people with such outrageous conduct. But, the Constitution and its legal niceties stand in the way of a solution based on emotion, as they should. The Supreme Court must determine if a private ceremony on public property, online attacks directed at individuals who are not public figures and the competing interest of freedom of expression, permit speech that is repugnant in every sense.
Is it an attack that fails even the most liberal definition of public protest, or does the sanctity of Free Speech outweigh the injury caused to the Snyder family? These are the cases that force us to focus on fundamental values and human rights. Each of us should go beyond, and sometimes ignore, the media and the pundits. Carefully consider the precious nature of our Constitutional freedoms and the agonizing circumstances of this case. Perhaps even take the time to read the document so often cited as protection for conduct that in some countries would be a death sentence.
We are blessed to live in a society which resolves even the most emotional disputes in a court of law. The Justices will let us know next summer and we will abide by the result. In the meantime, our sympathy is extended to Mr. Snyder and his family, as well as our gratitude for his son’s service to our country.
