Let's not be too hasty in protecting The Westboro gang's angry hateful speech

I like many of you have been reading blogs and opinions adnauseum about protecting offensive speech (((not to mention the nooumerous news stories))) I am struck as to the overwhelming narrative on the need to protect  hateful, hurtful expression, and the paucity of thought on the fact that not ALL speech is protected.

 It is absolutely correct to protect the dissenting and angry expression, yet that anger and that dissent has to be based on whether it presents a “clear and present danger.”

There are two areas of unprotected speech that I think might come into play here, one is obscene language, the other is “fighting words.”

As a good blog by Gary Baumgarten, (((and many others))) has stated, taken on their own, this filth that the Westboro gang spews, is fully protected.

But we CANNOT cut and paste ANY speech for every occasion.

I can take as many pictures of any deity immersed in any bodily fluid that I want, and it’s not obscene.

However when I expose YOU to my pictures. . . . . .welllllll we just might have to test that against what we consider obscene.

Two young fellas can hang out and call each other the “N word” all they want, but if a current member of the klan goes up to some old black man who maybe witnessed lynchings and lived through "Jim Crow," and that klansman says ‘“N word,” get out of my way.”’ He just might get the hell beat out of him. Furthermore, he might not have the protection of the argument that he was just expressing himself as many of the young folks do.

Why is this, because  as Justice Learned Hand formulated the “clear and present danger test,” each expression test  must be measured as to whether the gravity of the  expression is discounted by its improbability and does this new equation keep the hate speech above the  level which still justifies  silencing that expression as necessary to avoid the danger.

In other words, if you emotionally unwrap a person and create such turmoil that they see you as a threat, they are justified in stopping your speech.

I would think that in such a highly emotional scene as a funeral of a child, this test is more than apropos. (((c'mon folks can there be any more of an emotional situation where we are already so caught up in spiritual turmoil.)))

They, the Westboro filth may not be physically threatening this family, but a father may well try and protect his wife or other family member from being emotionally overburdened and having a breakdown. . . . . . . .

Innnnnn which case the state may indeed have reason to step in and protect the Westboro goofs from themselves.

Note that I’m not trying to make a case that Westboro is wrong or right or if the family is due the money, I’m just trying to state the case that this is a good case to test “freedom of expression.”

Cheers !!!!

I'm Out