First Amendment Rights at Funerals

There were several heated letters to the editor in response to Wednesday's NYT's article entitled, "Justices Uphold Hateful Protest as Free Speech." The article stated the Supreme Court's decision in the Snyder v. Phelps case: religious groups protesting America's acceptance of homosexuality at a gay marine's funeral is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

These two letters were my favorite:

To the Editor:

Re “Justices Uphold Hateful Protest as Free Speech” (front page, March 3):

I think the right to a solemn, private, dignified and peaceful funeral far outweighs the right to protest, particularly if the person being buried has nothing to do with the protest.

Therefore I think the Supreme Court gravely erred in Snyder v. Phelps, in which it sided with a religious group to permit it to protest at a military funeral against the American policy of allowing gays in the military.

Groups will always have opportunities to protest. But a family gets only one opportunity to properly grieve a child’s death.

Kenneth L. Zimmerman
Huntington Beach, Calif., March 3, 2011

To the Editor:

On reading the free speech decision of the Supreme Court, I realized that two “parts” of me were reacting. One part is a rabbi who has officiated at hundreds of funerals. The other part is a patriot who went to military school and served in the Air Force.

The rabbinical part was sickened by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kan., and initially surprised by the Supreme Court decision. I couldn’t imagine listening to the contemptible ravings of a group outside a funeral home while eulogizing the deceased, who sacrificed his life for his country, and trying to comfort the mourners inside.

The patriotic part has been just as sickened when witnessing the American flag being burned, because I am unashamedly in love with my country.

But our courts have decided that both are protected by the First Amendment. When I combine the two parts as a patriotic rabbi, I understand that no sooner do we limit one detestable act than other restrictions may subtly follow, until we reach the point when the hallowed words of the First Amendment become hollow.

After my initial reaction, the court’s decision helped me all the more to understand why I love my country. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Jack D. Spiro
Richmond, Va., March 3, 2011

Which one are we to accept? Is there wiggle room in the First Amendment for grieving families and should protesters not be allowed at military funerals just because of common decency? Or like the 2nd letter said, if we place one limit on the First Amendment, does the entire thing cease to have meaning?