The tragic events in Arizona two weeks ago resulting in the death of six people have brought forward a constitutional issue that strikes the soul of many Americans. Westboro Baptist Church announced plans to picket the funerals of the victims in the Tucson shooting, and brought the question of whether America's most sacred doctrine of free speech was intended to support radical discourse intent on injuring those whom most of the American public hold in highest valor to the forefront of the American conscious.
The question strikes the deepest chord with those who stand for and give their lives for the rights and liberty that the United States was founded upon.
Fred Phelps, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, and his congregation have been known to spread their message that God is punishing the U.S. for its tolerance of homosexuality with the death of U.S. soldiers.
The group has picketed funerals, such as those of fallen Marine Albert Snyder, and Matthew Shepard, who was murdered for being gay. Though public outrage has followed Phelps' congregation's actions, First Amendment rights have protected him from any legal retribution or attempts to block his actions.
Phelps' distasteful and disgusting actions attack the most basic liberty in the constitution and yet are protected by the constitution through the right to free speech. This clash between free speech and privacy has come to the point at which the Supreme Court will have to take a stand for those who give their lives for the American dream or protect those who look to ridicule it.
Snyder's father sued the members of the Kansas Church for their protest at his son's funeral with the intention of inflicting emotional distress. As a result, in October, the Supreme Court will struggle with whether to take a stand with a subjective, interpretive approach to the constitution or continue to mitigate these heart-wrenching debates in fear of the implications of future cases.
The legal ramification of this decision will resonate with many Americans, and in my opinion, suggest that the protection of free speech comes alongside the importance of public opinion and the right to take a stand. While the legal puzzle of the legitimacy of the Westboro Church's action may take time, we must consider how the power of the individual shapes the attitudes and actions of the American public. I find the actions of Phelps and his congregation repulsive, but according to our constitution he has the right to make his opinions heard. Despite this, it is important that we, as well as those with political and judicial power, see the power of the constitution not just in the words but also in the people.
While the Supreme Court remains deadlocked in trying not to overstep boundaries in interpreting the constitution, people have begun to fight back. High school senior Zach Parker took a stand by fighting to ban Phelps' protest, and in the process gathered a huge following to push Maine senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to act. Such actions have brought more support to stop Phelps than any other method. The power of the people and of local associations is the foundation for the strength of American politics in protecting the people and their liberty.
Realization of this power is the catalyst for progressive politics and law. Tucson is fighting Westboro's attempt to picket the funeral of a nine-year-old girl, with the Phoenix Motorcycle Group planning a giant counter-protest, while Arizona senators scrambled to pass a bill that limits the protesters' access to the funeral. Phelps' actions will be tested legally, but more important he will face the power of the people and their right to take a stand.
The Westboro Baptist Church's action will test the legal limits of freedom, and the boundaries of the conflict between morality and liberty. Regardless, the principle we adhere to within this liberal democracy pushes for both an objective perspective and a multiplicity of individual opinions. We, as Americans, must recognize our responsibility not to simply abide by the constitution, but to recognize the progressive nature of the constitution by taking a stand for what we believe in.
Sage Santangelo is a member of the Class of 2012.