Why I have mixed feeling about the Phelp's verdict [View All]

[NJmaverick]

The problem, I have is this:

Phelps and his group are evil. What they are doing is morally reprehensible, in my opinion. Still the very foundation of free speech is not in the protection of popular speech. Rather it's the protections afforded to unpopular ideas and opinions. Sure some speech will remain forever unpopular, and rightfully so. Still other ideas start out as hated and unpopular, only to gain public acceptance, over time. The problem is few people can figure out how history will play out. When one stifles speech on the grounds that it is unpopular, it doesn't matter what excuse one uses. Call it hate speech, call it politically incorrect, call it dangerous or treasonous, one is playing a dangerous game. History is full of various tricks used to get around the 1st amendment and to stifle speech that one doesn't want to hear. Often the speech that people attempted to stifle proved to be the morally correct stance.

In this case it's a bit more dangerous. I think most people will say our civil legal system is out of control and dangerous. The case law is ripe with people suing and winning for things like coffee that is too hot or ladders that didn't have enough warning labels. If this sort of standard is allowed to be used on speech, I fear that free speech could become a distant memory. As much as I hate what they are doing, I think one needs to be careful how one goes about stopping them. I would much prefer the way PGR and his group is handling it, over the idea that people can sue one another over public speech that they don't like.

What's to stop a company from using this tactic to sue protestors that hurt their business? What if politicians start to use it? What if George Bush is allowed to sue everyone that called him stupid, for emotional distress?