Whether we like it or not, some people find in their religious faith the need to denounce, rather than to uplift. They choose to hate on behalf of a vengeful God, rather than to love in the name of a merciful one. Faced with the pain of the suffering, they see evidence of God's wrath, not evidence of God's invitation to show compassion for those who hurt.
Add to that religious perspective a lack of social grace and a commitment to confrontation and you have the rude voices of Westboro Baptist Church, the group of funeral protesters who call attention to their cause by celebrating the death of Americans as God's punishment for a wicked nation. Usually on big signs.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that, because their subject is a matter of public concern, the First Amendment protects even their inflammatory brand of fire and brimstone. Writing for an 8-1 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded (pdf):
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
No First Amendment protection is more important that that of unpopular and minority voices – be they religious, anti-religious, or simply those of dubious religion. Freedom is easy to maintain when the viewpoints in question are noncontroversial and widely held. But it's equally right to do when faced with offensive and insulting views like the ones promoted by Westboro.
This free speech case was not about religious freedom per se. The fact that these folks have "Church" at the end of their name did not enter in to the court's opinion. Still, our national commitment to protect unpopular and uncomfortable perspectives – and to allow wide latitude in the way those perspectives may be expressed – goes hand in hand with the deep religious freedoms we enjoy. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion would each suffer if both are not robustly protected by our courts and laws. Together, they bolster our religious diversity, and make real the promise of religious liberty.
