Westboro Baptist Rights, Government Wrongs
by Max Raskin When the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to carry signs at the funerals of soldiers proclaiming "God hates fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" comes into conflict with a community’s right to peace, which should take precedence? To answer such a question, a logical analysis of rights is needed, for emotion is not an acceptable way of determining truth. If we recognize an absolute right to comfort, then almost all speech would be stifled, as opinions are inherently contestable. Alternatively, if an absolute right to free speech is adopted, then there is no way to limit any speech, even on the property of another. Therefore to avoid conflict, and create a just society, there must be some bright line to determine where one person’s right to free speech ends and another’s right to comfort begins. Through an application of property rights, conflicts between the rights of the individual versus those of the community can be resolved in a just and ethical manner, giving a much needed bright line. Before trying to resolve the Westboro Baptist Church case, the nature of the conflict must be understood. This church holds that God, as punishment for America’s acceptance of homosexuality, causes the deaths of American soldiers. To protect society from God’s wrath, they feel compelled to protest America’s sinful ways. They carry extremely offensive signs at many events, including funerals, while making sure not to trespass on private property. The conflict comes when states, such as Indiana, pass laws that make it a felony, punishable by jail time, to protest within five hundred feet of a funeral. The church makes a completely valid point when they claim that their First Amendment rights are being violated. The Amendment explicitly states, "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech," and the Indiana State Legislature has done just that, passed a law limiting speech. But if looked at carefully, the First Amendment has a flaw, in that it does not qualify this right, and thus presumes it to be absolute. Does one have the right to go into another’s house and harangue him for his religious or political beliefs? Surely not; yet, under the First Amendment, Congress cannot pass a law that will prohibit this type of speech. Thus an examination of society’s claims must be understood as well. The vast majority of Indianans is appalled by this group’s behavior and supportive of the legislation that its state senate has passed. They too have a legitimate grievance when they claim that the Declaration of Independence gives each person a right to "the pursuit of happiness," and therefore people like the Westboro Baptist Church should be punished for violating the community’s right to comfort. These protestors not only break the rights expounded in America’s founding document, but also go against the entirety of society in a country ruled as a democracy. To interrupt the mourning of a family is an act that is permitted by the Constitution, yet goes against what is written in the Declaration of Independence. A paradox is set up, and it is obvious that because of the nature of our contradictory government, there needs to be a solution that rises above the flaws of state mandated law. Ayn Rand proclaims that, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." The flawed premise, which has been relied upon up until now, is in valuing the government’s laws, be it the Constitution or Declaration of Independence above, the soon to be revealed, natural law. The just solution to the conflict between the individual and society can be summed up in two words: property rights. Every person has the absolute right to his body and property and can do with them as he pleases, so long as he does not initiate aggression against the body or property of another. This is the sole law that should govern human behavior; a property right ethic. While it may appear to be of little significance, it will be shown how this rule can be applied to any number of disputes between individuals and society; furthermore, the existence of government (public) property directly violates this ethical axiom. All rights can be understood as property rights. No one has a right to "free speech," per se, but rather a right to speak on one’s property. All First Amendment rights, including freedom of the press, to assemble, and to worship, can be understood qua property rights. A person does not have a right to use the New York Times’s printing press, nor does he have a right to worship in another’s temple without his permission. A group does not have the right to assemble wherever they choose, but rather the rights of others bind them. If actually applied, the concept of rights, qua property right, can resolve a common conflict between the individual and society. One has a right to yell whatever he wants in a crowded theatre, provided that it is his theatre, and he is not breaking any contracts with his patrons. If the rules of the theatre prevent a person from acting in an unruly manner, then screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre should be just as illegal as screaming anything in that theatre, not because of something inherent to the word "fire", but because one has violated the rights of the other patrons. The community of movie patrons has no rights to comfort, but rather individual patrons have the right for their contract with the theatre owner, which prohibits disruption, to be protected under the law. Thus, when looked through a lens of property rights, conflicts between the individual and society look more like the rights of various individuals to dispose of property as they choose, and the obligation to respect the property of others. The real conflict is not one between the community and the individual, but rather between the state and the individual; the existence of public property poses an irreconcilable problem for this system of social cooperation. Because in theory no single person owns public property, there is no way to determine who has a right to do with the land as they choose. The government’s rules governing such land can be nothing more than arbitrary, as they have no fine line as to what speech should be limited. Is reciting Leviticus 20, where God says, "If a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death," any worse than what the Westboro Baptist Church is saying? By applying the same standards to both, according to this anti-hate speech legislation, people should not be allowed to preach the Bible, as it would incite violence. Because public property makes it impossible for justice to be determined through a superior natural law, the existence of such property must inherently stand in the way of justice. Society must decide whether it values public property or conflict resolution more. On the one hand there stands appeals to vague notions of communal rights and on the other there exists concrete and objective ways of determining justice. Starting with a seemingly insignificant case of a small, offensive Baptist church and then analyzing the nature of its conflict, has lead to the radical conclusion of the abolishment of public property. The question of whether or not such a totally privatized society is the most efficient is not the one at hand. Rather, what has been decided upon is the ability of private property to resolve seemingly irreconcilable conflicts between the rights of the individual and those of society. November 8, 2006 Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com |