First Amendment goes both ways

(c) 2010 by Steve Martaindale

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments from the father of a Marine killed in an accident while serving in Iraq.

The dad, Albert Snyder, is now the face of numerous families of deceased American warriors that, while mourning their losses, endured hate-filled picketing from a so-called church. The church members, most of who are related to the pastor, claim dead American soldiers are proof God hates this country for tolerating homosexuality and abortion.

Snyder says the church members exceeded their First Amendment rights and crossed into his personal space while picketing his son’s funeral with signs like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

I join most journalists in saying the Court must stand by the Bill of Rights and throw out Snyder’s suit. That is, free speech does not equal tasteful speech.

However, I also point a condemning finger at the American media and allege they are more of the problem than the little church that makes such huge waves only because the media do the church’s distasteful work for it.

You see, the church members have the right to travel around the country and protest near funerals, as long as they follow applicable laws. What they do not have a right to is intense media coverage.

Seriously, is there any doubt this church’s protests and rants will eventually wither up and blow away if its every move is not broadcast on television stations and printed in newspapers and magazines?

“What are you saying?” one might ask. “Aren’t the media supposed to report all sides?”

This is not an issue of sides. This is not a valid social argument. There is no public interest in presenting the ridiculous protests of this church.

Responsible media – local and national – would let the protesters protest without the benefit of added exposure. OK, truth is local media are often scared of appearing they were afraid to address the issue, so they will air it. If that’s the case, add a line to the report that says something like, “Antiwar protestors were seen along the route.”

Instead, we are inundated with photos and videos of church members – many of them children – carrying signs spewing hatred. The church’s name and location are given and, usually, its pastor named. And that’s what they really want.

Is there any doubt they are doing this for publicity? Maybe an occasional member will think he is actually executing the will of God by disrupting a soldier’s funeral. I guarantee you, however, the church leaders who deposit donations from fellow haters know the real reason begins with a dollar sign.

The next question inevitably turns up: “Do we really want the media deciding what we should or should not see?”

My answer is, “You think they don’t?”

News judgments must be made and many are close calls. The answer to those should be to give an accurate and balanced presentation and let the reader or viewer decide.

Some decisions are not that simple.

Suicides have always been delicate issues for local news outlets. Papers I’ve been a part of usually took the approach to not report on a suicide unless it was such a public event it could not be ignored. Why not report it? Because it served no purpose outweighing the grief handed the family.

These funeral protesters are similar. Operating as their propaganda tool serves no redeemable purpose.

The First Amendment goes both ways. The protestors have the right to unleash their hateful thoughts. Responsible news media have the right to ignore them.

 (c) 2010 by Steve Martaindale