Where do we draw the line? (The controversy surrounding funeral picketing)

Responding to Funeral Demonstrations (In-Class Debate on May 6, 2009)

The debate on Wednesday focused around the very controversial topic of funeral picketing of fallen soldiers – a conflict most recently brought to light by the Westboro Baptist Church who entered the spotlight in 1998 when they protested against a man who was beaten to death due to his homosexuality, and again in 2005 when they picked a 19 year old soldier who died in Iraq, amongst others. However, these questions bring forth the idea of freedom of expression versus infringement on people’s right to mourn properly – and the decency of how we should act as peoples towards one another; which are the issues that the two debates set out to address.

The government began setting out to first invoke personal emotion; by challenging the audience to imagine a close family members funeral being picketed by a war demonstration we were able to connect to the anger that the families could potentially feel. To preserve the family’s right to mourn in peace and uphold the integrity and dignity for those members who had passed the government proposed federal legislation that would hinder demonstration at funerals of soldiers who had died at war. The government presented their case by showcasing their case on a moral ground. Center around the idea of respect and individual protection, the government highlighted legal precedence in supporting cases that would uphold the idea of private mourning. Further, the argument centered on the idea of appropriateness and how a political demonstration at a time of mourning is in fact an infringement on personal rights to allow such an intimate act to remain intimate.

The opposition countered their argument and said that any government restriction would cross lines that would be too broad to define; ultimately by paving the way for a very slippery slope. The idea of the military is to protect free ideas and democracy, and limiting picketing would counter those very core fundamentals of what a free society advocates. Further expressing that public dissent is in fact a healthy and necessary thing to be had in our democracy and if the line is drawn at funeral pickets, then who is to say that will not open other doors to limit free speech. If we limit these pickets, whose to stop the placing of limitations on other pickets if they are considered offensive to some? This slippery slope could ultimately open the door to hindering our freedom of speech in not only this circumstance, but others.

While ultimately both sides made great argument, the appeal to emotion made by the government was not easy enough to define. On many levels, there is no doubt that any rational person would say that picketing at a funeral is indecent. However, who really has the right to define the limits of what we in society consider decent and what we do not? While it may not be decent, it certainly does not cause direct harm. Ultimately, the opposition was able to tie their argument more concretely with how limiting our rights throughout history have in fact infringed on those justices that the soldiers died to protect. In example, at one time the idea of creating a non-segregated United States could have been considered an indecent proposal. The United States is a free market of ideas, and opposition has been at its foundation since the conception of this nation, which is why we so strongly guard those rights in the first place.

Often differing ideas offend many, but a difference of opinion is not enough to limit our right to free speech that those soldiers fought to protect in the first place. While it could be reasonable to perhaps limit distances, the idea of infringing on another’s feelings or emotions is much to indefinable to limit our freedoms based on that premise, especially when we cannot see physical signs of damage. If we limit picketing, who is to say the government cannot limit when or where name-calling can be used? It is obvious here, that such value statements made by the government are too hard to define and if we give the government the power to define decency, there is no limit to what restrictions that could place on our democratic values in the future.