License and Liberty

License and Liberty

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church can’t be punished for picketing at funerals. Is this really a win for free speech?


Fred Phelps’s Westboro Baptist Church is an alarming coven of zealots. Somehow they find the energy to picket everything from Comic-Con (“an excuse for whores to wear skimpy get-ups”) to the funeral of Mr. Rogers (for teaching tolerance to children) to the Golden Globe Awards (because “people chase after frivolity and vanity when they ought to turn back to their Lord Jesus Christ and
Repent and Obey”). Prejudiced in the broadest sense, they maintain that Catholics are the “most hateful people on earth”; Muhammad was a “whoremonger”; and “Jews are the real Nazis.”

It’s not surprising, then, that the Supreme Court created a stir with its recent holding in Snyder v. Phelps that freedom of expression precludes the government from punishing Westboro for picketing the funerals of private citizens with hateful epithets. The opinion, however, is quite narrow—the Court held only that the political content of Westboro’s rhetoric was protected by the First Amendment against torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress—and the popular impression that Westboro is now free to shout its fire and brimstone at funerals willy-nilly is misleading. Indeed, in the incident in question, Westboro complied with police requests to stay 1,000 feet from the funeral, and all but the tops of its members’ signs were hidden from mourners’ view.

What is most interesting, therefore, about Westboro’s social challenge was not really in the suit. Indeed, the general revulsion at the Snyder decision is probably underwritten less by the particulars of the case than by concerns about the Phelps family’s sanity: about their ghoulish haunting of funerals, their open calls for hatred, the sad plight of the smallest of their children holding God Hates Fags signs, as well as the enormous publicity that always attends such a sorry little band. The issues at stake go beyond free speech and touch on communications technology, profit, celebrity and mental health. Consider, for example, what happened in the wake of Jared Lee Loughner’s rampage in Tucson, when it was reported that the Westboro church “agreed” not to protest at the funerals of the shooting victims. But agreement implies agency, rationality, capacity to contract. How did Westboro—which claims to have picketed more than 44,000 events in more than 813 cities—suddenly become so “agreeable,” anyway?

As it turned out, there was indeed an explicit bargain not to protest in exchange for airtime on two radio stations. Arrangements like this have worked for Westboro before; most notoriously, it received lots of airtime in exchange for not picketing the funerals of five Amish schoolgirls killed by a gunman in 2006. Margie Phelps, a lawyer for the church, said that such contracts were made based on how much publicity they would get: “It’s how many ears we can reach. That is our job; that is our goal.”

That Westboro was not at the Arizona funerals was good news, but the transaction behind it is worrisome. Conservative host Mike Gallagher, one of the radio personalities who “donated” an hour on his show, said, “I don’t like the idea of giving them the satisfaction of this, but I believe my radio airwaves are less important than them hurting families.” But Gallagher’s nationally syndicated show reaches millions of listeners. Was Westboro’s absence really “worth” such broad access to so “many ears”? Gallagher positioned “his” airwaves as some kind of chit to be traded according to no bounds but his own. The deal had more than a whiff of extortion about it, like children who declare that they will stop screaming only if their parents let them have that candy bar NOW! What’s at work is less free speech than plain old bullying, shot through with entertainment value—a show that will get everyone’s juices jumping, better than a fistfight on Jerry Springer.

A week before the show aired, Gallagher gave lip service to balancing the program with moderating voices. In getting his network to agree, he said that it was important to have “a skilled, intellectual theologian type” in the studio at the same time. “So we invited the great Dinesh D’Souza to also be a part of this very important broadcast.”

One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry. Dinesh D’Souza? The one who blamed the “cultural left” for 9/11 because “what disgusts [Muslims] are not free elections but the sight of hundreds of homosexuals kissing each other and taking marriage vows.” The same D’Souza who believed that torture at Abu Ghraib “didn’t represent the values of conservative America” but rather “the sexual immodesty of liberal America.” D’Souza! Who as editor of The Dartmouth Review, published a vulgar satire of Jewish students’ celebration of Succoth.

Gallagher continued: “We’ve managed to do what the courts have been unable to do, and that is stop the Westboro Baptist Church from going to hurt these particular families…. We’re very proud of that, especially in the light of…this horrendous accusation that talk-radio somehow led to the events of last Saturday…with our so-called inflammatory rhetoric.”

And so the broadcast went forth to the multitudes, on January 17, Martin Luther King Day. Phelps’s daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper spoke in a soothing rush of soft urgency, declaring that final destruction is imminent. “God hates,” she said in her agreeably dulcet way; it’s just “His perfect righteous determination.” She called the Tucson shooting a “God-smack,” and complained “the media has shut the door to the word of God.” “The federal judge in Arizona…is paying the down payment for putting us on trial.”

My belief in free speech extends, with some distaste, to the Mike Gallagher Show. I believe that words ought to be countered with more words. I am not sure, however, if simple ideological commitment to free speech is sufficient when the ability to have one’s words heard is so linked to wealth and to access to complex propagandistic magnifications of the human voice. And I remain very unsure if the gospel of violent vengeance, which so titillates mass media, is not providing the basis for prophecy of its own.

Thank you for reading The Nation

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read, just one of the many incisive, deeply-reported articles we publish daily. Now more than ever, we need fearless journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media.

Throughout this critical election year and a time of media austerity and renewed campus activism and rising labor organizing, independent journalism that gets to the heart of the matter is more critical than ever before. Donate right now and help us hold the powerful accountable, shine a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug, and build a more just and equitable future.

For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and moral clarity. As a reader-supported publication, we are not beholden to the whims of advertisers or a corporate owner. But it does take financial resources to report on stories that may take weeks or months to properly investigate, thoroughly edit and fact-check articles, and get our stories into the hands of readers.

Donate today and stand with us for a better future. Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Ad Policy