Just last week the Supreme Court ruled that Westborough Baptist Church (WBC) held the right to protest soldiers’ funerals and the gay “lifestyle.”

This decision gives our entire country something to celebrate.

If the Supreme Court upholds these people’s right to speak freely, then they will uphold everyone’s right to an opinion, and give each of us a chance to voice our own ideas and thoughts to the masses.

At first, I was genuinely excited for this action. And in most aspects, I still am. I take comfort in knowing that our government is working to not discriminate against certain groups just because it does not agree with the groups opinions or dogma, and I am even more ecstatic that our government is allowing people to freely practice their religion. If the Westborough Baptist Church can worship and throw their opinions around like they want to, then that means that atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, everyone else can as well. That is a beautiful thing.

I do not think that protesting soldiers’ funerals (no matter how much one disagrees with the war) shows respect for their families, but I do support the right to do so. The government has no role in telling us what we should be able to peacefully protest.

Although WBC protestors do not physically harm anyone, I have begun to wonder if “peaceful” should only pertain to physical acts.

Hate-speech can hurt a person just as much, if not more, than a direct blow to the body. I wonder if it is really necessary for the WBC to use the word “fag” in their protest. This oppressive word can be compared to the “n-word” in the 1960s.

People use offensive words to place themselves above others of a different sexual orientation (just as people widely did with racial slurs before the 1960s civil rights movement) in a social hierarchy. Today, one rarely hears these slurs unless they are talking to a close-minded individual or someone trying to make an extreme point. Even then the line between “statement” and “bigotry” is blurred.

Hate-speech can cause people to feel that they are so degraded that it leads to suicide, self destructive behavior, and serious psychological problems.

Hate-speech cannot be defined as just a term either. It can be an entire phrase, oration, or series of rhetoric. Would you allow a group to blatantly push someone to the brink of killing themselves? Though WBC is not pushing people off of a psychological cliff, they are bringing them too close to the edge, and encouraging the jump.

Should we allow these people to protest in this way? Why can they not say, “Don’t support the war!” or “Homosexuality is wrong!” Sure, “God hates fags!” and “God hates America!” make much more of an impact, but they state the same message.

There is a difference between stating an opinion, and bullying people into submission.

So while I do celebrate the decision to allow the WBC to protest what they want, I may not support the decision to allow them to continue using the rhetoric that they have chosen. The key two words here, however, are “may not.” I don’t know. It’s something I am still battling.

I urge you to do the same, and while doing so, always think about what your words are doing to the world around you.

Michael Graves is a first year religious studies and communications studies double major. He can be reached for comments or questions at [email protected].