Pastor Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church has condemned the victims who were felled by Jared Lee Loughner's bullets. (Photo Credit: CC BY-ND/Project Q Atlanta)

Controversial pastor Fred Phelps of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church has spoken out regarding the tragic shootings in Tucson, Ariz., reports The Stir. In a move that should surprise no one who has followed the activities of Phelps and his flock, the contentious pastor has called Jared Lee Loughner a “soldier hero” and announced plans to boycott the funerals of the six people who were gunned down in a Tucson Safeway on Saturday, among them a 9-year-old girl.

Fred Phelps and the free speech/hate speech divide

Few people burdened by even an ounce of human compassion could entertain the idea that when Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others, Loughner was somehow doing the work of a benevolent higher power. While the U.S. Constitution grants individuals the right to free speech, resolving where to place the line before hate speech – of which Fred Phelps and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church have been accused in the media – has proven to be a legal quagmire.

Currently on the docket for the Supreme Court of the United States is a case in which Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are being accused of using hate speech during their protests at the funeral of an Iraq war veteran. The dead soldier’s father was initially granted millions of dollars in damages by a Baltimore federal court, but that ruling was later overturned by an appeals court.

‘Thank God for the violent shooter,’ said Phelps

Based upon Fred Phelps’ interpretation of an ancient text – the Bible – it is the work of a higher power that Jared Lee Loughner was sent to the Tucson, Ariz., Safeway with a loaded, concealed Glock-19. In Phelps’ mind, it was the will of God that Gabrielle Giffords and 13 others were wounded and six were killed. Phelps says the victims faced harsh justice for what he believes to be support for the homosexual community and divorce (points of fixation for the Westboro Baptist Church). Phelps even went so far as to say that it was unfortunate that more didn’t die, such is his hatred of those he feels have wronged society – including a 9-year-old girl.

As The Stir puts it, “neither common sense nor respect” are characteristics of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.

Sources

The Stir

Phelps weighs in on tragedy in Tucson (WARNING: Contains speech/images some may find offensive)

Counter-protesting at a Westboro Baptist Church gathering. (Photo Credit: CC BY-SA/R. Steven Rainwater/Flickr)

Fred Phelps and the congregation of Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church have proved that they are willing to actively protest Marine funerals as an expression of their faith. Now the Supreme Court is getting involved, reports The Baltimore Sun. The Court will decide whether the Westboro Baptist Church’s actions in relation to the 2006 funeral of an Iraq war soldier constitute hate speech and whether the family of the dead soldier is due millions of dollars that were previously awarded by a Baltimore federal court, but later overturned by an appeals court.

Westboro Baptist Church’s act has been labeled hate speech

Albert Snyder, the father of the deceased soldier, has revealed that while Westboro Baptist Church protesters were not immediately visible at the site of the funeral on March 3, 2006, he did catch them on television later. The Westboro flock had been gathered outside St. John’s Roman Catholic Church in Westminster, Md., during the funeral, with such signs as “Thank God for dead soldiers” and others that attacked homosexuality. The latter did not apply to the Marine or his family, but Westboro explained it as an attack against the “permissive” government that the dead Marine served. On a website maintained by Shirley Phelps-Roper – Fred Phelps’ daughter – The Sun reports that the Westboro Baptist Church attacks the Marine who died, his family and their Catholic faith.

Westboro sued for invasion of privacy and emotional distress

Snyder sued Westboro Baptist Church on the grounds of intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. The trial judge in Baltimore, who found Westboro’s actions outrageous and extremely offensive, upheld the jury verdict. However, the requested reward of $11 million was reduced by the judge to $5 million. By 2009, however, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the Baltimore verdict, claiming that Westboro Baptist Church’s messages were protected by freedom of speech.

Now the Supreme Court is hearing Albert Snyder’s appeal. Oral arguments are being heard today. A decision on whether a “private figure” can sue if he is a “target of hateful speech” will come soon, writes the Sun.

Sources

The Baltimore Sun

The Supreme Court says animal cruelty is illegal, but now animal cruelty videos are protected by the First Amendment. (Photo: Creative Commons)

In an 8-to-1 vote, the United States Supreme Court has struck down a 1999 animal cruelty law, paving the way for animal cruelty videos to fall under the blanket of First Amendment freedom of speech protection, which includes everything from criticizing the government to extolling the utility of payday loans. Reuters reports that the previous law was intended to prevent the sale of “crush” videos, a disturbing fetish niche depicting the torture and killing of small animals beneath a woman’s high-heeled shoe. Now the Supreme Court claims that the 1999 law was broad enough to make such things as bullfighting and the sale of some documentaries illegal. Concerned that this could be viewed as government censorship, the Supreme Court struck down the law as invalid under the First Amendment.

Animal cruelty and animal cruelty videos: One’s illegal, the other isn’t?

Justice John Roberts, whose 20-page opinion expressed the view of the majority regarding animal cruelty vs. animal cruelty videos, wrote that “there is no evidence of a similar tradition prohibiting depictions of such cruelty.” Thus, Robert Stevens of Virginia, who made and sold videos of pitbulls, hogs and wild boards fighting each other may very well have his 2005 conviction in United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769 (still under appeal) overturned. While Justice Department lawyers argued that animal cruelty videos should be treated like child pornography (not protected by Free Speech), the Supreme Court didn’t agree. The lone dissenting voice – Justice Samuel Alito – said “the law could be validly applied to at least two broad categories of expression: crush videos and dog-fighting videos,” according to Reuters.

Advocacy inciting lawless action

Here is the U.S. Supreme Court’s take on free speech:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that government may not prohibit speech that advocates illegal or subversive activity unless ‘such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action’ (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]).”

Notice that advocacy inciting lawless action is not permitted. The common Brandenburg test cases the Supreme Court cites involve situations where politically charged or subversive speech is held to be “mere hyperbole” since they do not connote a threat “intended to be acted on at a definite point in time.” It could be argued that animal cruelty videos involve a filmmaker who is complicit in a clearly illegal act. If the real act of animal cruelty in and of itself is illegal, then why should filming such acts with the intent of taking credit card orders and deliver not fall outside free speech protection? It’s no longer a matter of intent once the act has been filmed; the illegal act has occurred. Furthermore, developing an audience for such films might be considered inciting further lawless action, as the commercial success of such animal cruelty videos could prompt parties to film future videos.

What about obscenity?

This is an area the Supreme Court has had trouble defining clearly over the years. Justice Potter Stewart once said “I know it when I see it,” which didn’t help matters. But there is the Supreme Court’s three-part test to determine obscenity:

The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that its predominant theme appeals to a “prurient” interest

It depicts or describes sexual activity in a “patently offensive” manner

It lacks, when taken as a whole, serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (refers to Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 [1973]).

How do crush videos and animal cruelty videos stack up? The average person likely would not find that either incites sexual desire, but would they appeal to another’s prurient interest? Absolutely; it’s why they’re made in the first place. Regarding the second point, the average person likely finds both types of videos offensive. Finally, regarding a lack of value, neither type of video is literary or overtly political. However, some people could conceivably attribute artistic or scientific value to crush videos or animal cruelty videos. These are people you don’t want to know.

Related Video: