The linked story, which I want to talk about specifically, is about a recent court case involving the Westboro Baptist Church. I retweeted (RT) a post on Twitter about it, the day of the ruling, which was RT by others heavily, although oddly I don’t see them in my Twitter stream at the moment. It was still in my Facebook stream:
RT @Jaison96: True @queerunity As sick as the Westboro Baptist Church is, #LGBT comm must defend their first amendmnt right to free speech.
While I believe that, I have wrestled all week thinking about this. Here is the headline of the linked story:
O’Reilly Says He’ll Pay Legal Costs Of Father Forced To Pay Costs Of Anti-Gay Protesters
It starts off like this:
Bill O’Reilly, the presenter of The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News has finally given us a reason to love Fox News
Really?  I’m supposed to start loving Fox News because one person on their lineup saws one thing that I am supposed to see as supportive? Really? Does someone think that every gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans person is so brainless, that we love or hate, or in any other way pick sides like that?  O’Reilly’s interest isn’t what’s best for gays and lesbians.
The frightening part is that there are many out there, who do pick sides and decide to love or support one side or another for far less than this. and this type of thinking and “sides-taking” is a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.
What are the ramifications of stifling free speech, and/or speech that offends others? Where are the limits and who gets to make them? What happens when it appears as if your rights and my rights can not co-exist? Whose rights win out?
O’Reilly Says He’ll Pay Legal Costs Of Father Forced To Pay Costs Of Anti-Gay Protesters.
Received this from Andy Hoover, at the ACLU:
Tom, I saw your blog the other day about the Westboro protests. This AP article is very interesting and does give the sense that Mr. Snyder has an uphill climb.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010…
Not everyone is on Snyder's side, even if they find Westboro's protests loathsome.
They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land — 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md. The protesters — Phelps and six family members — broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.
Jonathan M. Turley, a George Washington University law professor, asked his constitutional law class to grapple with the case. At first, the entire class was sympathetic to Snyder. But after they dug deeper, they concluded that Westboro's speech was protected by the First Amendment. “Once you get down to trying to draw the line between privacy and free speech, it becomes clear that a ruling against Westboro could create the danger of a slippery slope for future courts,” Turley said.