The Freedom Bulletin

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Westboro Baptist Church’s protests at military funerals are protected by the First Amendment. The WBC is the extremist religious group, led by Fred Phelps and composed largely of his extended family, that believes that the deaths of soldiers are God’s punishment to America for its acceptance of gays and lesbians. Not an idea I agree with, to say the least, and one that is extremely offensive and hurtful to many people, especially the family of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq and whose funeral the WBC picketed.

But the Court decided that the Snyder family is not entitled to monetary compensation from Phelps and his organization. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion:

“Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. It did not disrupt Mathew Snyder’s funeral, and its choice to picket at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”

Contrast this with France’s legal response to fashion designer John Galliano’s alleged anti-Semitic rant. He was charged with “public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race, or ethnicity” and faces up to six years in prison for saying things like “I love Hitler” and “your forefathers would be gassed.”

Although the First Amendment protects unpleasant speech, I am thankful for it. Opinions should not be banned merely because they are offensive to many people. Extreme, radical, and even wrong views such as those of the Phelps family and anti-Semites, have a role in public discourse simply because diversity of opinion is a good thing. I would rather live in a world where people are allowed to express all kinds of views, even those that I find offensive and wrong, than one where people are forced or pressured into uniformity of thought.

Full Supreme Court ruling (PDF)

As you probably know by now if you haven’t been living under a rock, Craigslist decided to take down its “adult services” section in response to pressure from 17 states’ attorneys general. In the aftermath of Philip Markoff‘s suicide, one of the most vocal critics of the site’s adult services section has been Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. She also wants to repeal the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), which shields websites from liability for things that third parties post.

In my opinion, Craigslist was not legally or morally obligated to remove its “adult” ads, and the attorneys general are acting like a bunch of paternalistic, sexist bullies.

First of all, the CDA is a good law. In addition to protecting Craigslist from liability for thinly-veiled prostitution ads, the CDA also protects sites like Youtube from being sued when people post copyright-infringing videos, and forums from being sued for users’ defamatory comments. This principle just makes sense. People are responsible for their own actions, so they should be held responsible for all of and only what they post themselves. For large, popular websites, it is unreasonable to expect administrators to be able to monitor everything that gets posted.

Additionally, the attitude of Coakley and the other attorneys general is sexist and insulting. In a joint letter, they write about the “women and children who will continue to be victimized.” Although probably not common, it’s certainly possible for men to be forced into prostitution, or even for women to be the perpetrators.

Furthermore, the attorneys general fail to distinguish between prostitution, an activity that is illegal but which some people choose to participate in, and human trafficking, which is when people are forced into prostitution. Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal, for example, said: “Prostitution is not a victimless crime. Human trafficking results in tragedies to children and others.” I don’t necessarily think prostitution should be legal, but everyone should recognize that there is a difference between choosing to do something and being forced to do it. Blumenthal seems unable to tell the difference.

Finally, the bullying by the attorneys general makes Craigslist, and by extension the Internet, worse. I don’t regularly use Craigslist, but it has a certain appeal that comes from its simplicity, freedom, and anonymity. In the age of cookies, behavioral tracking, and intrusive personalization, it is great that a site exists where people can simply post almost anything they want with little or no moderation. Last year, in response to pressure from 39 attorneys general, Craigslist began to require personally-identifying information for adult services ads. Although this might make the site safer, it detracts from the anarchy that makes Craigslist what it is.

In short, Craigslist is not doing anything wrong by merely failing to remove illegal ads that third parties post. In the vast majority of cases, people who post ads or respond to them do so because they have considered the risks involved and have decided that the benefits are worth it. To take away an option from people merely because it is dangerous insults them by implying that they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, and harms them by denying them the ability to do something that they want to do. Although a small number of people are forced into prostitution against their will, and the existence of Craigslist might make their victimization slightly easier, not all prostitution involves force, and not all adult services ads involve prostitution. It is never okay to punish many people for the actions of a few.

In the eloquent words of the Cato Institute’s Jim Harper: “The cost to free speech in the AGs’ badgering of Craigslist vastly outweighs the infinitesimal crime-prevention benefit.”

I wish our attorneys general would stop bullying harmless websites like Craigslist, and start standing up for people’s liberty against oppressive federal laws like, say, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment or the health care non-reform law.

President Obama said a few days ago that Muslims have the right to build a mosque near the site of the September 11th attacks. According to Obama…

“Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

Later, he added that he was “was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom” of the plan but merely the Constitutional right to do so.

I, believe it or not, agree with Obama.

Building a mosque near Ground Zero is not the greatest idea. It is a little strange and not very fitting to have a mosque right near the site of the worst act of terrorism in American history, which was committed by terrorists who happened to be Muslims. If I was in charge of building the mosque, I would choose a different location.

But it would not violate anyone’s rights to build the mosque. If you buy a plot of land, you have the right to build whatever you want there, even if most people disapprove of it. New York City could offer to buy up the land and turn it into a public memorial, but as long as the mosque developers own the land, they can build whatever they want.

Newt Gingrich compared building a mosque near Ground Zero to putting Nazi signs next to the Holocaust museum. Although I am a Newt fan, I have to object to this particular analogy. Nazism is the ideology that is responsible for the Holocaust, while Islam itself is not responsible for 9/11, just certain individuals who happened to be radical Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, while all Nazis are, well, Nazis. Putting a pro-terrorism memorial or terrorist training camp at Ground Zero, now that would be the equivalent of Nazi signs at the Holocaust museum.

In conclusion, although perhaps not a wise idea, there is no Constitutional or moral reason why a mosque near Ground Zero should be forbidden. The First Amendment gives people the freedoms of, among other things, religion and speech. 9/11 was the worst act of terrorism in American history. The feelings of its victims are important, and the potential Mosque builders should take them into account. But in America, we do not and should not deny people the right to practice their religion just because this would offend people.

On Cinco de Mayo, two high school students in California wore American flag t-shirts to school. The principal told them to either take the shirts off or wear them inside out, calling them “incendiary.” Now the two boys and their parents are suing the school system, claiming that the school’s actions violated their constitutional rights:

Kendall and Joy Jones; John and Dianna Dariano, parents of Matthew Dariano; and Kurt and Julie Ann Fagerstrom, parents of Dominic Maciel, are asking a judge to rule that what happened May 5 at Live Oak violated the First and Fourteenth amendments, and that the school district’s policy regarding student speech is too vague.

The suit also asks for “nominal damages” and to award attorneys’ fees.

The Morgan Hill Unified School District, Live Oak Principal Nick Boden and Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez are named as the defendants.

Some people might call this lawsuit frivolous, but I think it has merit. No one should be banned from showing pride in their country, even during the holiday of another country. So many teenagers try to be cool and fit in at all costs that it’s a breath of fresh air to hear about teens showing their patriotism and standing up for what they believe in. It’s too bad that the Fourth of July doesn’t fall during the school year, because it would be interesting to see if the school allowed students to wear Mexican flag t-shirts on America’s holiday.

Complaint (PDF), thanks to KSBW-TV via the Examiner