Scathing

“Scathing.  Can I do scathing?  I don’t know.  But I sure WANT to do scathing.”

That was going to be how I started this blog post.  But before I had the opportunity to write, I reminded myself to take my own advice.  And of course, had to completely change direction.  Let me explain.

I have certain work “rules” I follow.  One is that I do not check or write email, read news articles, or do anything of a personal nature during work hours.  In a lot of years I can tell you that exactly 14 times I have broken that rule.  I did so last Wednesday, March 2^nd.  I saw the headline about the Supreme Court decision regarding Snyder vs. Phelps.  You know, the church members who picket at military funerals.  Why did I do that?  I ended up incensed, frustrated, hurt, any number of emotions all within a short few minutes.  I could not imagine that this could be right!  Why would we let actions such as those of the Westboro Baptist congregation compound the hurt and grief of parents at the absolute worst time in their lives?  Where are the rights of parents to bury a child without the intrusion of hate-filled strangers?  I knew how we would have felt if we had been subjected to that, even though the age and circumstances of a military death and Natalia’s death are so different.  But once again, that concept of “the same kind of different” works well.  Details matter less than the shared experience of loss. 

It was early afternoon, so I had to get myself calmed back down and complete the workday.  Somehow I managed.  Trista and I go to Pilates class on Wednesday nights.   Want to guess how well I did at class?  Let’s just put it this way.  Our instructor, Ellen, whom I like immensely, started laughing during instruction!  I’ve never seen her do that.  And I’m sure she was looking at me! 

But, I’m sure I was comical. I was totally distracted, composing words in my head the entire hour of class.  I could not wait to get home and start writing.  Once here however, I realized I had not done what I always do.  What I believe in.  What I say should always be done.  I did not go to the source.  So I did several things. 

First, I checked two different reports.  For the first time ever I read readers’ comments, about 38 total.  I was surprised.  Only one thought the Supreme Court “got it wrong”.  However, I was comforted by the fact that all thought the Westboro Baptist church members’ actions reprehensible and despicable.  One person even felt sorry for them, saying that to live with that kind of hate is, in truth, very sad and a waste of living time.  I wish I could say my eyes were opened by that sentiment.  They weren’t.  I was not so generous.  

Having read the commentary, I sat for a few minutes, trying to think through why so many were in agreement that the decision was right?  Those few minutes were exactly what I needed.  I began to wonder how the vote could be 8 to 1???   I had been on the Supreme Court site before and read a decision.  Why had I not gone to the site immediately and read the decision before getting all upset?   Why had I not thought all this through on my own?  Because, as I’ve said a good number of times, when it is a personally emotional issue, all thought, logic, and normal pattern of behavior are tossed aside. 

So, to the Supreme Court site I went to read the actual written decision for myself.  I read 10 of the 36 pages.  But that was enough.  I have to say that I learned a lot about not only this particular case, but also about how the Court analyzed the case.  The case, as I understood it, essentially depended on whether or not the speech was regarding a private or public concern.  The controversial or inappropriate nature of the speech was irrelevant.  The Court examined content, form, and context of the speech.    As best I can summarize, here’s my understanding of what I read: 

• This Westboro Baptist group has been picketing military funerals for 20 years.
• They notified authorities of their intent to picket in advance of the protest.
• They protested on public land. 
• That land was approximately 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was held. 
• There were several buildings separating the protest site from the church.
• None of the picketers entered church property or went to the cemetery.
• They acted in accordance with guidance from local law enforcement. 
• They picketed and displayed their signs in a peaceful manner.
• They did not yell or use profanity.
• There was no violence associated with their picketing.
•  

The action filed against this group by the marine’s father alleged claims of: 

• Defamation.
• Publicity given to private life.
• Intentional emotional distress.
• Intrusion upon seclusion.
• Civil conspiracy.  

A District Court concluded that Mr. Snyder could not prove the necessary elements for defamation and publicity given to private life.  However, the remaining claims went to trial. As described in the decision, Mr. Snyder, at trial, “described the severity of his emotional injuries. He testified that he is unable to separate the thought of his dead son from his thoughts of Westboro’s picketing, and that he often becomes tearful, angry, and physically ill when he thinks about it.”  Experts evidently testified that the anguish resulted in Mr. Snyder experiencing severe depression, and also that pre-existing health conditions had been exacerbated.   (You can well imagine how much I understand and hurt for this father.) 

Of course, the jury decided for Mr. Snyder and awarded damages.  Thus the Westboro defendant/s filed motions; the Court of Appeals heard the case and agreed that the First Amendment rights protected Westboro’s speech.  How?  The Supreme Court decision explained, saying, “The court reviewed the picket signs and concluded 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.”

I won’t continue to summarize.  You get the point and I think this is adequate to show what and how much I learned.    First, I was reminded, again, that I believe in going “to the source” for several reasons.  It is wise to study and think for myself, as opposed to determining my conviction/s based on someone else’s insight.  And, equally important, there might be a perspective, a rationale that I need to understand.  That perspective just might change my mind on an issue.  Even if I don’t want it to!

Secondly, I was reminded of how relatively easy it is to “go to the source” in this age of the Internet.  Not a bad thing!  So, I have no excuse, do I? 

Thirdly, I was reminded of how important it is to “proceed with caution” when an issue has emotional implications.  It’s human, I know.  But it helps us all if we try not to draw conclusions from that perspective only. 

Fourthly, I was reminded of the importance of approaching an issue with an open mind.  I need to be willing to completely change my point of view.

Do I still abhor what people like those who protest at military funerals do?  How could I not?  We have lived and experienced the opposite of that kind of hate.  We received love and compassion and empathy, the very gifts that these kind of people will most likely never experience, not being willing to give it themselves.  Maybe I’ll get to the point where I feel sorry for them.  Right now my disgust eliminates any possibility of sorrow on their behalf.  Maybe that is very much to my shame.  I’ll have to think about that.