In the context of freedom of speech , where do your rights end and mine begin ? I want you to think about that for a moment .
I normally don't get involved in the sordid mess of political issues , but I feel this latest fiasco by westboro needs to be addressed in a logical
manner , from a constitutional standpoint .
Having replied to a poster in another thread on this issue , as an after-thought , I felt this issue deserved a thread of it's own .
I see numerous posters on here who say that westboro is protected by the First Amendment , in regards to protesting at funerals .
Those who are posting these claims could not be further from the truth .
The First Amendment , in the Bill of Rights , states in part : " Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech , ...".
The First Amendment prohibits CONGRESS , and CONGRESS ONLY , from "abridging" the freedom of speech . CONGRESS , and ONLY Congress , "shall make no
law" abridging the freedom of speech . This prohibition is directed at Congress only , and applies to no other entity , such as State Government .
So , what does this mean ? It means that Congress does not have the power to make any law(s) that would abridge freedom of speech . It does not state
, nor does it imply , that individual states are prohibited from making such laws .
And before any of you decide to challenge this and tell me how wrong I am , let's take a look at the 10th Amendment :
" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the States respectively ,
or the people ."
What this means , in the context of freedom of speech , is that the power to make any law(s) that would abridge freedom of speech , was not delegated
to Congress , by the Constitution .
" ... nor prohibited by it to the States ..." . The power to make such a law(s) , by any State , was not and is not , prohibited by the Constitution .
Therefore , the individual States are not prohibited from abridging the rights of westboro to protest at funerals . As a matter of fact , several
states have already enacted measures that curtail the so-called "rights" of westboro to protest at funerals .
Meaning , the First Amendment protects you from Congress . Nowhere , does it imply that it protects you from laws that may be enacted by any given
State .
In further support of my assertion that westboro has no constitutional right to protest at funerals , let's now take a look at the 9th Amendment :
" The enumeration in the Constitution , of certain rights , shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people ."
Meaning , the First Amendment enumerates that it is illegal for Congress to make any law(s) that would curtail your freedom of speech . It thereby
implies that you indeed , have freedom of speech . In 1791 , when the Bill Of Rights was ratified , it was commonly accepted that freedom of speech
was a " God-given" right , therefore , the framers of this document did not feel it was necessary to explicitly state that you are 'guaranteed'
freedom of speech .
The First Amendment does not guarantee you the "right" to freedom of speech . It only guarantees that you are protected from Congress passing laws
that would infringe upon your freedom of speech . To them , freedom of speech was a natural right , just as natural as sunshine and breathing . Their
intentions were to prevent CONGRESS from encroaching upon this "God-given" right .
With this in mind , it goes without saying that they considered freedom of speech to be your right . In this context , freedom of speech was
"enumerated" as a "certain right" , within the framework of the First Amendment .
Now , taking that with us as we look at the 9th Amendment again , the enumeration of freedom of speech as a certain right " shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people ." In other words , just because they considered freedom of speech to be a right , they explicitly
state here in the 9th Amendment , that their consideration of such , should not be construed to "deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the
people" .
Simply put , your freedom of speech does not guarantee you the right to deny or disparage the rights of other people .
This is where your rights end and mine begin .
Random House Dictionary :
disparage : (1) to speak of or treat slightingly .
(to) slight : (5) to ignore contemptuously . (7) contemptuous discourtesy .
In conclusion , westboro Baptist Church has a right to freedom of speech UNTIL the exercise of that right disparages the rights of others .
westboro Baptist Church , by protesting funerals , is contemptuously ignoring the rights of the families to conduct services for their loved ones
without being harASSed and ridiculed by phelps and his minions .
westboro Baptist Church is showing contemptuous discourtesy to the deceased and their families by protesting funerals .
Therefore , westboro's actions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL according to the 9th Amendment , thereby negating their ill-conceived 1st Amendment right to
freedom of speech .
So yes , there is a Constitutional line that has been drawn by the 9th Amendment .
westboro's protests ARE NOT protected by the First Amendment . Their First Amendment right is negated by their actions , according to the 9th
Amendment .
Let's beat them at their own game . Leave your comments . Stars and flags don't keep a thread on the front page , additional posts do . Let's make
others aware of this freedom of speech fallacy .
edit on 12-1-2011 by okbmd because: (no reason given)