The Westboro Decision

The miserable, execrable, demons of Westboro Baptist Church won a decision in the Supreme Court today that guarantees them the right to continue to mount their loathsome protests in the vicinity of funerals of fallen service members.  The conduct of these hateful lumps of DNA is about as reprehensible as it gets, and there is no place in a civil society for this kind of demonstration.

But the Supreme Court was right to reach the decision it did.

Loathsome, but Legal

By an 8-1 margin (Justice Alito in dissent), the Court (with the Chief writing the majority opinion) ruled that while there was no societal benefit to the speech Westboro practices, its elimination would be injurious to free-speech rights.  It is regrettable that they reached this decision, though the only thing more regrettable would have been for them to rule the other way. 

I am struck by Justice Alito's dissent.  I agree with virtually everything he says on a human level--but when it comes right down to it, there just isn't a reason to prohibit their speech that passes Constitutional muster.

The Newseum

The Center for a New American Security hosted a panel today to coincide with the release of their new study, "Contested Commons: The Future of American Power in a Multi-Polar World". CNAS chose to hold the panel in a luxe and beautiful conference room at The Newseum in Washington DC. For those of you who don't know, The Newseum is museum dedicated to the press and the role the press has in our Democracy--much of its funding has come from big, corporate press interests.

On the front facing facade of this magnificent structure is etched the words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It struck me as ironic that a building dedicated to the protection of that amendment would have been erected by an industry whose interests drive it to so vocally dispute ACTUAL free speech--free, corporate, political speech such as that upheld by the Supreme Court last week.