Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court Ruling

The recent eight to one Supreme Court decision on the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, Snyder v. Phelps, was not made on whether the church had the First Amendment right to engage in such activities. The decision of the court was on whether the First Amendment protects such activities from tort liability. The court held that even offensive and hurtful public speech is protected speech.

Justice Samuel Alito argued in his dissent that Westboro Baptist Church’s activities were directed against Matthew Snyder and his family as private figures and, as such, that their speech is not public speech. Based on this understanding of their actions, he argues that they can be sued for intentional infliction of emotional damage. He points out the strenuous nature of passing the test of “intentional infliction of emotional damage and argues that because the standard is strenuous that free speech is not substantially affected.” Alito recognized the modus operandi of Westboro Baptist Church is to use platforms such as funerals to gain media attention rather than using more logical platforms like government buildings.

The majority decision, however, correctly reached a different assessment of the facts. In the mind of the majority, the Westboro Baptist Church’s message, as heinous and offensive as it is, is public speech. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the eight member majority. He recognized that the message Westboro Baptist Church displayed is part of a longstanding protest of the policy of the United States military. This decision was correct in stating that the message of Westboro’s protestors was not directed primarily at the Snyder family but rather at the United States and its military in general.

Additionally, the Westboro protestors abided by the rules set for their protest by the town. They moved away from the funeral the required distance, and there is no evidence that they interfered with the funeral by anything more than their presence. Mr. Snyder, himself, admitted that he was only made aware of the protesters’ presence by watching a news broadcast at a later time. The court correctly recognized that choosing a particular platform in order to increase publicity does not transform public speech into private speech.

The actions of Westboro Baptist Church cannot be viewed with anything but the greatest distain. Their activities surely do cause extensive emotional harm to the families participating in the funerals. As a nation, however, we have time and again recognized that the right of free speech necessary to a free society deserves the highest protection the law can provide. As the message of Westboro Baptist Church does not call for nor incite illegal or dangerous activity, it must be protected. The effects of limiting free speech in this area would be vast and terrible. To establish precedent that speech on public and national issues that is offensive or emotionally damaging is subject to tort liability would place substantial limits on political and moral speech in this nation. For example, if a pastor was to preach on the Biblical messages about homosexuality, such a message would in all probability offend or cause emotional damage. Free speech is essential to ordered liberty and must be preserved even when that free speech causes offense.

Faulks on Fiction - The Hero

In a new BBC series, author Sebastian Faulks examines various recurring character types in British fictional novels. The series contains four episodes detailing the character types of hero, lover, villain, and snob. Faulks begins with the hero. Like society in modern political philosophy, heroism in fiction usually takes the form of radical individualism.

Faulks begins with Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe, the hero, is a radically isolated individual. Interestingly, this isolation begins as a geographic isolation. Crusoe shares much the same morals and mentality of the “good” people of his time; indeed, unlike heroes in earlier literature, Crusoe is a very normal human being – he is not set apart by anything other than his isolation. His individualism is based in his ability to provide for himself. Crusoe provides both the physical and the emotional sustenance that he needs. His emotional struggle with his isolation is the conflict that defines him as a hero. While Friday improves his life, one is left thinking that Crusoe would have been fine had he lived alone to the end of his days. Crusoe is the master of his destiny.

What would this radically individualistic hero look like if placed in society? For that, Faulks turns to Tom Jones. Tom is not bound by the religion or morality of the time, but from his own moral compass usually acts in a commendable and generous fashion. His actions are based on feeling rather than thought and analysis. His heroicism comes from his common roguishness ratherthan from some moral or physical prowess. Tom realizes that he is in charge of his life and his misfortunes. He is viewed as a hero because he does what he wishes; in typical enlightenment optimism, this lifestyle is tempered with kindness toward the less fortunate. In Tom Jones, the hero is defined by his individual morality and control of his life. Jones displays the hypocrisy of the morally upright who would not recognize the plight of the poor. One can only say, “these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Luke 11:42)”

This hypocrisy is again touched on in Vanity Fair. The conflict of rich and poor is the conflict that defines Becky Sharp as a hero. She struggles against her social position in an effort to become wealthy, popular, and societally advanced Her ambition is, of course, focused on herself as an individual. She uses everyone around her in an attempt to better herself. “Vitality is more important than virtue.” This explains with Becky. She is utterly morally reprehensible, yet so interesting. She exchanges intelligence for Tom Jones benevolence.

In Sherlock Holmes, we return to the Tom Jones idea of a hero who benefits those around them. Holmes fights crime, but like Tom Jones is bound only by his individual morality. This morality has him work independently of the police, hide facts and evidence from them, and occasionally allow a criminal to escape. Faulks labels Holmes the novel’s first superhero. Holmes rises to heroism also in his mastery of science; it is this mastery that takes the place of Tom’s benevolence and Becky’s practical intelligence. Like both Tom and Becky, Holmes has his moral failings as well – particularly his drug addiction. More disturbing, however, is Holmes’ inability to be emotionally close to anyone. This radical isolation becomes a key part of the role of hero in modern literature. Holmes captured the public’s attention in a way few characters have ever managed; when Holmes died, large numbers of the British public went into mourning and Doyle was forced to resurrect him.

The grime, evil, and sadness of life seen in the London of Sherlock Holmes was mirrored in post-World War I and II fiction. Even the idea of the individual was shaken – man became merely a number, a statistic. This view of man fit well with the rise of totalitarian regimes. No longer is the hero an overcomer, one who flaunts the conventions of society; the hero becomes the subversive, the prisoner. The struggle is between the isolated individual and the overwhelming state. Rather than the glorification of individualism, the struggle to maintain one’s individualism becomes the defining conflict. This can be seen clearly in 1984 and the character of Winston Smith. The hero becomes the rebel. Though Winston Smith engages in immorality, it is not his flaunting of morality but his defiance of the state that makes him a hero. Eventually Winston is caught and forced to comply with the state. He is faced with his fears, but cannot overcome; he turns on his lover and compatriot. Heroism is no longer viewed as overcoming, but as struggling.

Though it eventually became clear that totalitarianism was not going to take over the world (at least not in a 1984 or Soviet Union sense), the disillusionment that began with World War I continued and manifested itself as boredom in the lives of everyday individuals. In the 1950s, this frustration was given vent in Lucky Jim and its hero Jim Dixon. Jim Dixon is a professor who is utterly bored with his life, with his job, and with the people he works and interacts with. Heroism is found in the struggle against this societal anomie through humor and sarcasm. Heroism is again subversive, but this subversiveness is of a humorous and childish type. What Jim is seeking for is authenticity in the sense that Heidegger or Sartre discusses it; his struggle is against fake or inauthentic existence. Jim seeks for this in the isolation and individualism of existential angst; his frustrations are best expressed as he talks to himself.

By the time we reach the 1984 novel, Money (the only novel discussed that I have not read), the hero is almost unrecognizable. John Self lives life completely subject to the passions of food, alcohol, sex, and entertainment. Unlike Tom Jones, he is not struggling against the morals of society – indeed there seems to be no struggle at all; unlike Tom Jones, he is neither gallant nor good hearted. This conception of the hero seems to follow on the heels of Jim Dixon. His heroism is his refusal to be bored with life; the excitement and activity of his life, his uninhibitedness, is what separates him from those around him. Even he cannot truly overcome; eventually he loses his money, his father, and even his own identity.

The character of the hero, at least in so-called literary novels, seems to follow the progression of man in philosophy. The hero as overcomer first struggled against his environment; in Tom Jones and Becky Sharp we see the hero’s struggle against economic conditions and social standing. In Sherlock Holmes the hero begins rejects societal standards. By the time we reach 1984, and reinforced in the character of Jim Dixon, the hero becomes a subversive; this subversive struggles against morality, society, and the government and usually loses. This dismal view of the hero reaches its culmination in John Self from Money who surrenders to all his lusts and eventually loses everything. The only thing that makes John self a hero is that he does what most of us are too inhibited (and rightly so) to do.

Faulks makes the dismal prediction that the hero in the literary novel is dead. He points to the rise of hero in genre and children’s novels, specifically mentioning Harry Potter. This re-emergence of the hero in other forms of the novel seems to hold out hope for the literary novel. If the writers of these literary novels can leave behind the failed philosophy of existentialism, perhaps the hero can live again. But when man is unsure of anything and his main struggle is his struggle for authentic existence, he is incapable of performing the hero’s part.

On Revolutions

Both the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution are somewhat misnamed. Edmund Burke called the Glorious Revolution a “revolution averted” and the same could be said of the American Revolution. Indeed the American Revolution would be much better described as a secession (no, secessionists, I’m not on your side) – the various states decided to secede from the control of Great Britain and her king and parliament after their blatant abuse of power.

The distinctive difference in these two “revolutions” from all others in history is that the governance of Great Britain and the United States did not change all that much in principle. Great Britain saw the greatest change in switching from the king as sovereign to parliamentary sovereignty, a change long in the making. The colonies in America maintained their various state governments which became sovereign after the revolution. In both cases, the “revolution” was focused at regaining long-standing rights or preventing the abrogation of rights. What is important to observe is that both societies remained relatively the same and many aspects of their government remained the same.

This pattern of retaining the structure of society and government is not seen the French Revolution and the subsequent “modern” revolutions. These revolutions are inevitable connected with gross human rights abuses in their attempt to overthrow societal hierarchies and the government. These revolutions, always utopian, result in greater oppression and horror than the regimes that preceded them. One need only look at the Reign of Terror in France, the Bolshevik Revolution, the reigns of Lenin and Stalin, the communist take-over of China, China’s Cultural Revolution, etc. to see the destructive nature of true revolutions.

Thus, the current journalistic and popular tendency to view the revolutions in Africa and the Middle East as positive should cause distress to students of history and human nature. This region of the world is especially susceptible to repressive tyranny given its history and the religion of Islam. One need only to look at the nation of Iran to see the insanity of believing that a revolution in this region of the world will bring about good. Though the aim of the revolution may be gaining freedom, trying to gain freedom by overthrowing society and government only leads to chaos. This chaos can only (at least historically has only) been fixed by the establishment of another regime. This new regime, cognizant of the fact that it was put in place by the mob and the overthrow of the previous regime, enacts as harsh or harsher controls on the population in a bid to maintain power longer than the previous regime. Throw in religious fanaticism and one creates an ultra-repressive regime like the Taliban where men cannot shave their beards, where girls cannot go to school, and where women have the approximate social standing and rights as animals.

The U.S. needs to learn that the world is not entirely ready for universal democracy and that democracy does not always result in freedom. Secular regimes are both in the better interests of their citizens than religious regimes and, especially if supportive of U.S. interests, the best for the interests of the United States. Given the proclivity of governments in this area to devolve into religious regimes, the U. S. government ought to support the secular regimes that exist. We don’t need another Iran.

The Eagle Neither Soars nor Plummets

The Eagle (released February 11 by Focus Features) was a breath of fresh air in its focus on honor rather than freedom. With the preponderance of movies such as Ridley Scott’s vapid blockbuster, Gladiator, portraying such ridiculous ideas as the modern desire for political freedom in the ancient world, we ought to be grateful for any movie that attempts to accurately portray the mentality of the people of its time

Julius Caesar said, “I love the name of honor more than I fear death.” This was the mindset of the main character of The Eagle – Marcus Flavius Aquila (Channing Tatum). Aquila’s family is dishonored because his father’s legion was destroyed by the Picts and the eagle standard of the legion was captured. Aquila’s life goal is to regain that lost eagle and with it his family’s honor.

Aquila pleads for the life of a Brigantine slave named Esca, played by Jamie Bell, because he showed courage when unfairly matched against a gladiator in the arena. Aquila’s uncle eventually purchases Esca to be Aquila’s body servant. Esca pledges service to Aquila in payment of hislife debt even though he despises him as a Roman. They decide to set out to regain the lost eagle and Aquila’s family honor

Both men are forced to trust each other in the wild together. Esca’s honor is tested as he finds himself among allies only too glad to kill Romans. When they finally reach their destination Esca seemingly turns on Aquila, and Aquila finds himself Esca’s slave. This tests their mutual trust even further. Eventually they escape with the eagle and are chased back to Roman Britain. They are met by the remnants of the lost legion who lose their lives but regain their honor in defending their eagle once more. In the end, the newly freed Esca and Aquila bring the eagle to the Roman authorities before setting out for further adventures – their trust of each other having led to understanding

Channing Tatum was reasonable as the main character. He is not the world’s most compelling actor and this movie changes nothing. He was, however, better able to portray the thoughts and model of the ancient world than characters in movies like the one mentioned above. Jamie Bell, on the other hand, exceeded even his usual stellar performance. His portrayal of a slave torn between his hatred of his master as a Roman and the life debt that he is honor bound to fulfill was moving. Both actors are convincing in their portrayal of growing trust and understanding as they become friends.

The cinematography left much to be desired. The film had a tendency to focus on a character’s face and blur the rest of the background for extended periods of time. The battle scenes were often jumpy and confused. The music (by Atli Orvarsson – Babylon A.D., Law & Order: Las Angeles) supported the action, plot, and themes well, but was not very memorable. Additionally, for those who have not read the book, the plotline may seem to develop very slowly.

The locations used in the film helped make it very real. There were breathtaking panoramas of the mountains of Scotland. There were scenes were the Romans were paddling boats up swampy rivers swathed in mist. The Seal People’s village looked completely natural in its setting.

The costumes were superb as well. The Romans’ uniforms were toned down, old, and well used – appropriate for a frontier outpost. The costumes of the city Romans also reflected a colonial edge and adaptation. The costumes of the Seal People were especially compelling. Probably the best scene, however, was the Druidical coming-of-age ritual with the vibrant costumes and headgear looking much the same as many old drawings of those rites

Besides Bell’s performance, the most remarkable aspect of this film was its accurate and compelling portrayal of the ancient views of freedom, slavery, honor, and virtue. Aquila and Esca treat each other as rough equals even though they are master and slave. Though Aquila gives him his freedom, Esca’s honor binds him to Aquila. Cicero wrote: “Honor is the reward of virtue” It is from their inner virtue that Aquila and Esca succeed in their endeavor.

Friendship: Pursuit of Virtue or Pursuit of Numbers?

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes life without friends as hardly worth living; but his idea of friendship is vastly different than the modern fetish of “making friends and influencing people” in which he who has the most friends wins. For Aristotle, friends are equals and their relationship is based on an active love for each other. Unanimity of feeling and shared intellectual sympathies are key to this idea of friendship. A mere feeling of goodwill cannot constitute friendship for Aristotle as one can feel such goodwill for someone one has never met. For Aristotle, mutual participation in activities that develop virtue are the main interest of the best type of friends. The depth of companionship needed for this type of friendship precludes friendship with large amounts of people. While there is certainly nothing wrong with being friendly with everyone, being everyone’s friend in any meaningful way is truly impossible. And as Aristotle noted, to go through one’s life without true friendship is to miss out on life.

In his book The Four Loves, C. S. Lewis distinguishes between friendship and the love that Christians are commanded to have for others – this is the distinction between φιλέω and ἀγαπάω/αγάπη. Lewis’ understanding of φιλέω is very similar to Aristotle’s conception of friendship. This type of friendship and love has mutual feeling – it is a quasi-emotional form of love. Αγάπη, on the other hand, is not a word connected with feeling. It is a word which describes action – actions taken on behalf of the loved. As C.S. Lewis notes, this type of love used to be called charity. This is the type of love that we are commanded to show others in the Bible. Φιλέω, or friendship, is never used in a command in the Bible. Thus, while we are required to serve one another in demonstration of our love to God, we are nowhere commanded to be friends with everyone nor to have fuzzy feelings of affection for everyone.

In the book of Job, we see several friends who none of us would like to emulate. As Job sits on a dung heap covered in sores having lost everything, his three friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. In the beginning, they seem to be a sort of Aristotelian friends (albeit pre-Aristotle) and they just sit down in the dust and dung with Job and share his suffering. But then they open their mouths. They all begin long diatribes accusing Job of sin, blaming his suffering on that sin, and encouraging Job to repent. Job all along defends himself. After all the rest speak, a fourth younger man, Elihu, speaks and rebukes the three friends for their false superiority and misconceptions of God’s justice. He also points out the hubris in Job’s desire to make his case before God as if he has some moral superiority over God. God then shows up and rebukes the three friends and Job, but not Elihu.

As Christian friends, we have a tendency to be like Job’s friends. We are always rebuking each other for some perceived slight moral failure. These moral failures often result not from the person violating a Biblical command, but from violating our personal standards. We rebuke people in much the same way as Job’s friends critiquing his activities. We are rarely like Elihu, challenging our friend’s misconceptions of reality and other real problems. We never attempt to help people with the problems that will have an effect on their lives and jobs. Problems such as failing to practice normal etiquette, competent dressing ability, use of proper grammar in speech, etc. go unaddressed as we strain at the gnats of minor dress code violations and music choices. We owe our friends more.

The King's Speech

The King’s Speech (released December 10, 2010) is the inspiring story of King George VI of England and his struggle with his rather sever stutter. The film stars Colin Firth as King George VI, Helena Bonham Carter as his wife Elizabeth, and Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Longue the King’s Australian speech therapist.

Colin Firth excels at portraying the struggling prince and eventual king. His stammering is incredibly realistic and his display of self-doubt is remarkable. His growth as a character becomes evident in his interactions with Geoffrey Rush. He goes to meet the speech therapist at the insistence of his wife, dislikes him immediately, and storms out of the first session in anger. As the story progresses, however, the king-to-be begins to trust and respect the therapist more and more. Colin Firth ably showcases this transformation. Eventually he comes to look at Lionel Longue as a friend and both his familiarity with and his dependence on him grows.

Geoffrey Rush plays an incredibly interesting character. Lionel Longue had no formal training in speech therapy; he was a somewhat successful theatre actor who attempted to help returning Australian WWI veterans who ended up with speech issues. Rush portrays him as a homey and familiar man genuinely concerned for those with whom he is working. He is charming and amusing, much of the humor in the film comes from him. Rush also excels at showing the awkwardness facing a “common man” forced to interact with royalty and the politicians and nobles surrounding them. His faithfulness to the king is unshakeable despite the hurtful snubs and words that occasionally emanate from the king.

Helena Bonham Carter. Where does one begin? In this film she plays an incredibly extraordinary normal woman, demonstrating that she can excel at more than just the bizarre. Her portrayal of Elizabeth is very moving. Indeed, her role personifies the old adage that “behind every great man there is a great woman.” Carter exemplifies all the love and devotion of a woman determined to help her husband achieve his true greatness. She is a business woman with Longue, she is a wife to George VI, she’s a mother to the princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. Her performance, as always, is impeccable.

The screenplay was very well written. Scenes such as the king-to-be’s difficulty in telling a story to his daughters due to his speech are superimposed between his failures at public speaking and his anguish filled practice sessions with Longue. One gets a strong feel for the humanity of the man. Another contrast was afforded by George VI’s older brother who found himself unable to “man up” and accept his responsibility to the country when it conflicted with his then scandalous love life and George who, though he did not want to be king and felt inadequate, strove to become what his country needed. One caveat: to those offended by language, there are two scenes where dozens of strong curse words are used.

The soundtrack fitted the movie very well – a well crafted combination of Beethoven and original pieces. At the climax of the movie, as George VI gives a speech announcing Britain’s entrance into WWII, the second movement from Beethoven’s 7^th symphony is played creating the perfect mood for the in tempore belli speech. This movie was as nearly perfect as any I have seen.

Decision Points: A Masterful Presidential Autobiography

Former President George W. Bush’s masterful autobiography displays the wisdom and struggles of a much maligned president. Its chapter structure follows from its title, i.e. the chapters are each about specific issues he had to face: Katrina, Iraq, Stem Cells, etc. In addition to detailing the reasons for his decisions and the results of those decisions, Bush gives a subtle apologetic for various conservative goals. He often uses stories and anecdotes to accomplish this apologetic. Indeed in reading his book, I was perpetually reminded of Plato’s discussion on the importance of stories designed to teach people virtues.

Bush begins his book with a candid discussion of his formative years and some of the struggles he went through. He talks about his proclivity to alcohol abuse and the circumstances that led to his defeat of his problem. His education included graduating from Yale and Harvard, which one would not expect given his bumpkin portrayal by the media.

His discussion of his decision to stop federal funding of stem cell research was well done. He established the ethos, pathos, and logos necessary to make the decision and to attempt to convince reasonable people of the merits of that decision. He looked at the facts and realized that other stem cells harvested in non-lethal ways showed much more promise. He grappled with the ethical considerations, realizing that most of these embryos would die eventually anyway, and established his ethical grounding on the issue. Finally, he introduced the country to “snowflake babies,” individuals born from frozen embryos, putting a human face on the issue and demonstrating that ethical considerations needed to be made.

His discussion of the Katrina crisis showed his disappointment and hurt at being labeled as not caring about African Americans. He points out that he had appointed two African Americans to the post of secretary of state, one of the highest positions in the executive branch. He also demonstrates that there were constitutional constraints on his ability to send in federal forces without authorization from Louisiana’s governor – that authorization did not come until too late. In this chapter, Bush takes the blame that he deserves, but also attacks the criticisms not grounded in fact.

In his chapters on Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush lays out the reasoning behind his decisions and the evidence that he had. He demonstrates that he and our intelligence services were not alone in our analysis of those countries and the dangers they posed. He is unapologetic about his decisions, but still give both his reasoning and the results of his actions for the reader’s perusal.

My only criticisms would be his use of language and his comparing himself to other presidents. While I do not necessarily reject the use of language, Bush's use of language seems merely designed to maintain the interest of the reader or to emphasize a point. If used for the former, he fails as there are only about a half a dozen spread throughout the book. If used for the latter, he fails again as they seem strained and ill-fitted to the task at hand. His comparisons of himself to other presidents, namely Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan, while understandable are often strained as well. Especially in the case of FDR, it sometimes seems as if he is using them in an attempt to gain popularity himself. These two very minor blemishes were the only ones that stood out to me in his prose.

The rest of the book is a similar discussion of other “decision points” in his presidency. Bush masterfully gives his readers the reasons for his decisions and the results of those decisions, and ultimately leaves it up to them to decide their merits. He candidly takes the blame for mistakes he makes, but also deals with unfounded criticisms. His use of stories and personal examples both from his own life and the lives of “normal people” that he interacted with during his presidency strengthens his decisions. It is a well crafted and insightful book.