Nick Van Nest

I really haven’t had a free weekend in a long long time. I love spending time with the company though.

Is 8 weeks of my life worth 2OOO dollars? I think I’d rather change the world than instruct at a summer camp.

I feel like I shouldnt have a tumblr because I never know what to write about.

Plus I definitely have more important stuff to do. Not that you’re not important, just my life is more important than this blog. 

Crisis 2 is great. Get it on the 36O.

Freedom to Hate?

In this nation we have all been raised to glorify the freedom of expression. Freedom of speech lets our humanity grow, for us to fulfill ourselves through creativity. Without it we could not share opinions or find the truths that emerge from debate. This is why our founding fathers placed the right to this freedom first in the Constitution, because every person deserves a voice. However as depicted by the Korean War Veterans Memorial, “Freedom is not Free.” Although the freedom of speech gives us so many things, it also forces us to face expression that we do not agree with. After Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in 1998 for being gay, the public was shocked to see protesters at his funeral holding signs saying “God Hates Fags” (NNDB). Behind these signs stood the people responsible for this blatant disrespect of his memory: the Westboro Baptist Church. This church has reached a twilight zone where to them, anything that happens is yet another reason god justifies their actions. It’s members protest at funerals, holding such controversial signs as these:

The grandchildren of pastor Phelps (left, right) and the pastor himself (center)

Indignant, our citizens seek to stop this church from spreading this message of hate as families bury their dead. However to no avail, as the right that gives us so much freedom also forces the police to stand by and let these people protest. Founded on the principles of freedom of speech, the United States protects this right so adamantly that it is helpless to take any action against the protesting of the Westboro Baptist Church.

The first amendment states that:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably to assemble…“

Under the freedoms of this document, the Westboro Baptist Church is given the liberty to protest and state their opinions no matter how controversial they may be. It is not surprising that they take full advantage of this liberty, as eleven of thirteen of pastor Phelps’ children are lawyers (AOL news). You may ask, how many lawyers it takes to defend the Westboro Baptist Church, apparently more than the amount needed for the OJ trail, and that man was guilty. The Guardian, a UK news organization, reports that the WBC is looking at new laws put in place specifically to stop these funeral protests, and, “is thinking of ways to challenge them.” These challenges undoubtedly probe just how much of their protests are covered by the First Amendment.

The United States legal system has continuously tested the First Amendment as society has reached crucial conflicts throughout its history. During the notorious 1977 case of Collin v. Smith, the KKK fought to march through the town of Skokie which was densely populated by Holocaust survivors. Although citizens were outraged, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard M. Decker stated that, “It is better to allow those who preach racial hate to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear.” (Law Library). Following this case the KKK marched through Skokie setting the precedent that no matter how full of hate ones ideas are, if they are expressed through nonviolence they may be voiced.  

This case not only reaffirms the rights of citizens to assemble and bring notice to a belief, but it also exemplifies that people have these rights even in the face of opposition from a community. This precedent applies directly to the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, as the church is also facing opposition from a community when they travel to other towns protesting funerals.

In 2000 there was another court case where the right to protest was questioned. In this case, Colorado legislated that outside of abortion clinics, protestors could not come within eight feet of any person without consent for the purpose of protest, education, distribution of literature, or counseling (wiki). At first there was the questions of whether this law was constitutional; whether keeping protesters back infringed on their freedom of speech. However the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional as they state in their bench opinion that this is not a limit of speech, but restricts listeners from unwanted communication. This case is a precedent that applies to the Westboro Baptist Church because people going to a funeral have the same amount of desire to face protesters as the women do going into abortion clinics.

Compared to the amount of resistance the government has shown in silencing the lewd protests of Westboro, it appears that the United States has only responded with minimal interactions. Although Westboro devastates the families whose funerals they protest, the government knows better than to silence free speech after the dangerous model provided by the interactions with the Branch Davidian Church in Waco, Texas. There a cult tried to live their dream of “a city on a hill” (Bible) only to have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives raid the complex for a few weapons violations, resulting in a fire that killed seventy-five people. Many people believe that this raid over firearms violations was an excuse for the government to discredit and disband the cult, however the unexpected armed conflict that ensued backfired in the governments face. However one thing was very clear from this incident; people who are completely invested in their religion are more than willing to fight the government to keep their beliefs. In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, this fight is instead conducted in courthouses instead of in armed standoffs.

As the Church probes the greyer aspects of the law, court cases come up, mostly focusing on their right to protest and the context of what they say. One law, which the WBC was charged with violating during a recent trial, was defamation. The defamation law was created to protect citizens from public embarrassment as a result of false statements being said against them. The case in point would be family members going to funerals and seeing protesters holding signs that say “God Hates Fags” or “Your Sons are in Hell.” These family members are clearly being publicly put-down. However, in reference to the law, the true or falsity of these statements blurs in the presence of religion. In Snyder v. Phelps, a case in which the father of a marine sued the Phelps for protesting at his son’s funeral, the Appeals Court found that: “Westboro’s statements were entitled to First Amendment protection because those statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric.” (Reporter of Decisions, 4). Through this precedent, the WBC is given the freedom to protest at funerals, so long as they stay within the confines of the law. Unfortunately the government can only sit back and watch as Westboro pickets and protests at the funerals of its citizens. 

Abandoning empathy for veterans and homosexuals alike, the Westboro Baptist Church has undoubtedly pushed the limits of the First Amendment with its message of hate. This church has not just taken to the streets with controversial issues like the abortion cases of the past, but it has openly created as much hate as it could. Despite this, WBC is still protect by the law, and probably always will be. Until the threat of physical violence gives the government the opportunity to intervene, this nation’s own principles stop it from doing anything against the Westboro Baptist Church.

Postscript: I have tried to cover as much as I could of the legal aspects of this group. There is clearly more I could do including Tort cases, but as of now this is just a small portion of my grade, and I have a life to get back to. I do want to say though that although the united states is legally helpless to do much against these people, there is always civil disobedience. Through research I have found numerous stories in which thousands of members of different communities encircled these people and yelled at them. Usually I would say answering hate with rage is counter productive, but when a community is enraged as one, a lot of amazing things can happen. We just must always be aware of where that rage takes us. Around this group also is an aura of untouchability. The weaker minded might question what it is, and may even confuse it for the blessing of god, but it is not god, it is the legal power of a family of lawyers who know their freedom to speak.  By law these people are untouchable. But in a way, the fact that they are still alive, and protected by the law is just evidence of how special our country is. A group of people may be venomously hated by a community, but regardless they are allowed to speak their minds. This country amazes me in that aspect. Does that mean their actions are right? No. But some people you can not change. They have twisted bible verses to quell their fear of what they do not understand. They have spent so much of themselves trying to change people. I’d rather live loving the people around me instead of judging them. 

Works Cited

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SNYDER v. PHELPS ET AL. Washington, D.C.: Supreme Court, Oct. 2010. PDF.

Vise, David A., and Lorraine Adams. “Danforth Promises Aggressive Waco Probe.” Washington Post 10 Sept. 1999: A1. Print.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. “Frisby v. Schultz.” UMKC School of Law. 27 June 1988. Web. 15 May 2011. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/frisby.html>.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. HILL ET AL. v. COLORADO ET AL. Washington, D.C., Supreme Court, Oct. 1999. PDF.

Matthew 5. New International Version, 1984. Web. 15 May 2011. <http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.htm>.

Borger, Julian. “Anti-gay Church Hounds Military Funerals.” The Guardian. 18 Apr. 2006. Web. 15 May 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/18/usa.gayrights>.

Theroux, Louis. “America’s Most Hated Family IN CRISIS.” YouTube. 2007. Web. 15 May 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/user/noeuro>.

“Matthew Shepard.” NNDB: Tracking the Entire World. Web. 15 May 2011. <http://www.nndb.com/people/705/000052549/>.

Law Library. “Collin v. Smith - Nazis Must Be Allowed to March.” Web. 16 May 2011. <http://law.jrank.org/pages/23090/Collin-v-Smith-Nazis-Must-be-Allowed-March.html>. 

Human Satire for the Few That Think. Digital image. Web. 15 May 2011. <http://whitemaleoppressor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/godkilledyoursons.jpg>.

Above the Law. Pastor Phelps holds protest signs. Digital image. Web. 15 May 2011. <http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2010/10/God-Hates-Fags-Westboro-Baptist-Church.jpg>.

IndyPosted. Phelps nephew with protest signs. Digital image. Web. 15 May 2011. <http://images.indyposted.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Westboro-Baptist-Church-Sons.jpg>. 

So yesterday my friends were debating gay marriage. As they were bringing up religion and all that stuff, I couldn’t help but look at it from an evolutionary standpoint. I mean, if you think about it, gayness is kind-of like evolutions way of creating population control. Humanity has a pattern of spreading and multiplying uncontrollably until their habitat becomes too small, which at that point they have to either move (like Mr.Smith says in The Matrix), or kill each-other for resources. Well just for a second, forget about all the characteristics that make gay people gay. Just picture a gay mans blank emotionless face, no expressions, makeup, just a blank stare. Ok, now scientifically that face is that of someone who physically cannot produce a child with his chosen mate. Now imagine one out of every five people in your life being like that. If you think about it, that would substantially reduce the worlds population growth by one fifth, maybe to the point where it would be possible to sustain it. Now picture a world with that many gay people. Women, when choosing a mate would not just compare the characteristics of men, but also gay men. They would look for a man who is straight, but sensitive. Straight men who grew up with gay men would need to be more sensitive to get a female mate. As a result, the world would receive a humanity with less of the destructive nature of man, and more the motherly nature of woman. Gay people, no longer a minority, would probably tone down the characteristics that annoy straight people, because straight people could be forward with them of their annoyances, and it not be discrimination. 

I’m not gay, I was just raised to try and accept people for who they are as best as I can. If this is how they were born, then this is how they were born, and hating them for that goes against every bit of belief to treat whites, jews, blacks, muslims, or any other group differently. 

Zinns View of WWI (The Great War)

So I’m reading A People’s History of The United States by Howard Zinn, and the book is pretty good. I mean the guy takes a pretty anti-capitalist standpoint at a few times though. He quotes W.E.B. Du Bois when he says,

“It is no longer the merchant prince, or the aristocratic monopoly, or even the employing class that is exploiting the world: It is the nation, a new democratic nation composed united capital and labor.” (363 Zinn).

Paraphrased, Zinn believes that there’s this subconscious or recognized need in capitalists to take advantage of Africa and its resources which led to American government calling for war. He doesn’t really specify on who really are the people wanting to do this, but he does point out that America wasn’t really gung-ho about getting into all of it. In the first six weeks of the war, only 73,OOO people volunteered, requiring congress to start a draft. Zinn then continues to say how it was the government that created this whole hype for the war. He says they set up a huge propaganda campaign, draft, and an anti protesting agenda.

anyway.. I need to do a science lab, so peace.

I want a little midget that would wear an army uniform with twigs sown into the hat, and follow me around. He’d be my first mate, and shout motivational things at me.

School is actually fun for once AND this is the first time I’ve been trying harder with homework. I wish I had a car parked on campus tho. I like being able to go wherever I want. On second thought, tho, a car would get me into a lot more.. uh. trouble.