Free Or Hateful Speech

What constitutes one receiving injury from speech made by another or by a group against that person? Simply, at what the point is speech no longer free, but rather libel? That's a question the Supreme Court here has wrestled with for years. I think there is no country on earth that allows as much injurious speech as the U.S. It's necessary because with too many limits on what is spoken by an individual liberty is lost. There is a fine line between speech that injures a person and is therefore illegal and speech that may hurt the feelings of the recipient of the unkind hateful words of it, but is protected by the first amendment guarantee of free speech. In short, no one has the right it limit anyone else's speech because that talk "hurt their feelings". The standard for control of what is said is much higher.

Four years ago, a handful of religious fanatics (nuts) from Kansas descended on a Maryland small town funeral for a 20 year old U.S. Marine who was killed in Iraq. They used the occasion for a grossly offensive campaign against gays. Picketers waved signs proclaiming, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "You're Going to Hell" and "God Hates You," among other sentiments because the dead soldier, Matthew Synder was gay. As disgusting as the protest was, it was on public property and considered legal.

Matthew's dad later filed suit against the protesters saying that they caused him to become ill, brought on depression and worsened his diabetes. Can unkind words really cause that injury and even if they do, should it be illegal to speak in the manner the protesters used to bring their issue into the public view? At any rate, the law suit sued for damages based on the emotional distress won $5 million for Matthew's dad until a court of appeal invalidated that decision.

So the question is back into the hands of the highest court of all here, The Supreme Court. They will review the case and make a precedent setting decision as to what the limits of hurtful speech are. Justice Kennedy said he wanted help "in finding some line" between speech that merits protection and speech that does not. Good luck on that one!

If the court were smart it might not even hear the case at all. What would you decide if you were on the court? As much as I find those kinds of protests disgusting I would tend to support the free speech of the protesters. They have the right to be fools, to be wrong, to be disgusting because the first amendment right super cedes bad taste.