By Selwyn Duke

Rev. Fred Phelps’ Westboro Cult (I’ll neither call them Baptist nor a church) was ordered to pay 10.9 million dollars to the family of a deceased marine after cheering his death at his funeral.  While it’s hard to imagine a more odious bunch — they regularly protest at military funerals, holding placards with slogans such as "Pray for more dead kids" — I must oppose this judgment.

It should go without saying that I can more than sympathize with the people the cult torments.  The cultists approach family members who are in a deep state of grief and intensify their pain when their feelings should be most respected.  And the cult has no more use for me than I do for them, as they have condemned my faith and believe I’m going to Hell as well.  Really, they’re probably the only religious group I can think of that actually matches the stereotype of Christians that leftists like to carry on about.  Thank God there are only about 70 of them (basically, Rev. Fred Phelps and his extended family).  But I digress.

As for the ruling, there is no escaping the conclusion that it is one of convenience.  These nuts have been intolerable, protesting at over 300 military funerals, so it’s understandable that people want them squelched.  Yet, the end doesn’t justify the means, and if this judgment is allowed to stand it will set a precedent that will come back to haunt us.

Let’s start by examining the charge against them: "[They] invaded the privacy of the dead man’s family and inflicted emotional distress." 

The problem here is the law of unintended consequences, as this charge might be leveled against most any group that was out of favor socially or politically.  Abortion protesters?  Sure, they invade people’s privacy and inflict emotional distress.  Christian protesters at homosexual events?  Ditto.  The fact of the matter is that leftists construe most any dissent as the infliction of emotional distress. 

And in a way, they’re not wrong.  What is the purpose of protest?  Is it not to make people uncomfortable, make them squirm, make them take notice of your cause and respond to it?  Is it not to inflict emotional distress?  And even if that isn’t the goal, it certainly is a byproduct.

After all, how many people will not be likely to experience some measure of emotional distress when subjected to a rancorous protest involving a large number of hostile, vocal people?  I’m quite sure that when Al Sharpton’s minions protested in front of Korean stores in New York City, the owners found it emotionally distressing.  And perhaps Michael Savage felt the same when some San Francisco lunkheads protested in front of his studio recently.

The truth is that legal action such as this provides another vehicle through which the powers-that-be can stifle politically incorrect dissent.  I say "another" because it has happened before.

Case in point: The RICO statute.  The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was originally designed to combat organized crime syndicates, a noble undertaking.  And I’m sure its framers never contemplated that it would be used against pro-life and anti-pornography protesters, but that’s exactly what happened in the 1980s and 90s.  It became a hammer that those with clout could use against those without. 

This is why creating legislation or handing down rulings in an atmosphere of strong emotion is a bad idea.  The motivations behind both RICO and this ruling were pure, but the road to Hell . . . .

We should think about this the next time we decide to cure a headache by cutting off our head.