The Westboro Baptist Church (post 3 revision)

The question in communicative justice raised by the case of The Westboro Baptist Church vs. The United States of America is to what extent is The Westboro Baptist Church protected by the First Amendment? In other words, to what extent can the government punish Westboro? I claim that since The Westboro Church engages in fighting words, they are punishable by the Supreme Court. The Westboro group uses words that should not be valued in a marketplace to truth. They use words and make statements that should not be protected politically or in order to promote individual self-fulfillment. Using all three philosophical arguments from John Mill, John Stuart Mill, John Chafee, Emerson, Haiman and Baker the Westboro should be punished by the government of the United States. Protecting their speech is not essential to the pursuit of truth, the promotion of self-government or self-fulfillment.

Historically, individuals and group of people have been punished for using the same types of “fighting words.” In the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire of 1942, Chaplinsky was convicted of violating the public laws of New Hampshire by using words that were “offensive, derisive or annoying to any other person who is lawfully in any street of other public place.” Upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, rejecting the chance that his words were protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided these words were likely to “inflict injury” upon the listener or “incite an immediate breach of the peace.” This case famously divided expression into two categories: that which has social value towards finding truth (worthwhile speech) and that, which has no social value (worthless speech). Within the category of worthless speech, there are two sub categories of “fighting words:” words that inflict injury upon the listener or words that incite an immediate breach of peace.

In similar cases, judges have established that these types of words are not socially valuable and should not be protected. The majority of our society feels that fighting words like the words used by the Westboro Church both injure the listener and incite a breach of peace. When Westboro members picket the funerals of heterosexual soldiers, they are injuring the family members at the funeral. When they hold up signs saying hurtful things towards homosexuals, they are asking for a breach of the peace and they harm the people they target their messages to. Based on their use of fighting words, I would apply the harm principle used by John Stuart Mill to my argument. Since their words are harmful and aim to injure, the First Amendment should not protect their words.

Under Virginia v. Black, the actions by the Westboro move toward provocation and even true threat given the “captive audiences” who might be present at funerals and the intrusions of the sounds. Since they come to places like funerals, often times, the people they target are members of a captive audience who don’t have much of a choice but to listen to their hateful words. The court case of Virginia v. Black dealt with the concept of captive audiences as well. When a burning cross was placed on the property of an African American family, the family had no choice but to be involved in the act of expression. Since the burning cross was placed there in order to inflict injury and intimidation, it was not protected. In Justice Thomas’ dissent, he argues that burning crosses become more behavior than speech. In the same way, picketing funerals and holding up signs is a behavior more than a speech, a behavior that seeks to incite.

Hate speech should only be protected when it has scientific, artistic or political value. If the hate speech is used simply as a form of behavior, harm, offense or injury, it should not be protected under the law. As soon as it steps over the line from having value, to hurting people, it becomes illegal. The question in communicative justice raised by the case of The Westboro Baptist Church vs. The United States of America is to what extent is The Westboro Baptist Church protected by the First Amendment? In other words, to what extent can the government punish Westboro? I claim that since The Westboro Church engages in fighting words, they are punishable by the Supreme Court. The Westboro group uses words that should not be valued in a marketplace to truth.