![]() |
| Photo Cred: New York Times |
Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights granted to Americans. It means that no one can be punished for speaking out against something or protesting, as long as it does not inflict harm on others. In the past the government has repeatedly violated the people's freedom of speech, especially during wartime. These violations of civil liberties include the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Espionage Act of 1917. But is freedom of speech still at risk today? The answer is yes. This week, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in the case of Snyder v Phelps. The Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for their message that the war in Iraq and natural disasters are the result of America's tolerance of homosexuals. When the Church protested Matthew Snyder's son's funeral, Snyder sued Westboro for invasion of privacy and emotional distress. A jury awarded Snyder five million dollars in damages, but the decision was later overturned. The issue of the case is whether or not the Westboro Baptist Church's right to freedom of speech protects them from lawsuits like Snyder's. This week, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 that the Church is in fact protected under the First Amendment. The decision has led to a wide range of reactions, from those who agree that free speech should be protected to those who want to prevent the Church from spewing hateful messages. Personally, I agree with the Court's decision. I find the Church's messages to be despicable, but they aren't physically harming anyone and their protests are peaceful. Therefore, we must allow them to share their beliefs. If we don't, where do we draw the line?
![]() |
| Photo Cred: NPR |
The lesson to be learned from these two stories is that civil liberties are never safe. Though America has made great strides in order to promote more tolerance among its citizens, there will always be an ongoing debate about the extent to which civil liberties should be protected.


This was really interesting, its unfortunate to read of our rights not being protected. I liked your post and how you tackled two issues. Its interesting to read about cases in the past and then see how things are still being questioned in the present day.
ReplyDelete