| Conference protesters pose no danger Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 12:00 AM |
|
Protesters long have used the forum of LDS General Conference to express their views. Not only have they included today's evangelical preachers but also native Americans opposing the Indian placement program and feminists lobbying against the church's position on the Equal Rights Amendment. Yet, the latest round of protests has brought concern that things have gotten out of hand. A scuffle even ensued between a protester and an LDS conference-goer resulting in the arrest of the conference-goer. Nor will this problem go away in the next conference. Reportedly, one preacher plans to show up wearing sacred temple garments. Salt Lake City government leaders are weighing how to avoid violence. What is to be done? First, it is best to suggest what should not be done. The Daily Herald urged that Salt Lake City consider the rhetoric of the protesters to be "fighting words" and apply a 1940s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows local governments to ban speech that may provoke violence on the part of the hearer. However, that ruling, which has been partly undermined by subsequent rulings, is problematic. Over time, the court has consistently narrowed the definition of fighting words to apply to those words with a clear and present danger of inciting violence and directed at a specific person. I talk about the First Amendment in my American Government classes and explain that the "fighting words" doctrine is flawed because it offers the opportunity of the heckler's veto. For example, if I contend that your speech will make me angry and violent, then the government can prohibit you from speaking. I then have the power to veto your right to speak. That is not right. And that is why the court has limited this doctrine severely. I doubt that very much of what transpires near Temple Square at conference time would fit in the approved category of fighting words. A reference to a specific bride as a "whore" would be applicable. But generally, the words of these street preachers are not directed at individuals, but at a group. There is not a clear and present danger of violence. Street preachers have been around Temple Square for years and violence has been rare. What then should be done? Let me suggest a solution through an anecdote: I remember attending General Conference as a student at BYU during a period of tension between the church and the American Indian movement. As we were waiting in line, protesters gathered near the crowds and begin banging their drums and chanting. The response from the conference-goers was not violence. Rather, most people ignored them. Those that did respond started singing hymns, not swinging fists. That is how it should be. The solution to this issue is not legal. The best solution is to recognize that those street preachers have as much freedom of speech as those who are walking into the conference center and even those who are speaking there. Their speech may be distasteful to many of us, but it is legal and should be. The best approach of conference-goers is to ignore them. They may not go away using that approach, but neither will they accomplish the purpose of creating a provocation. Richard Davis is a political science professor at Brigham Young University. This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A6. |
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
