Okay, guys I need help. In my English class, we are writing a persuasive speech and my topic is "1st Amendment Rights" But honestly, it's about how the first amendment can be abused. My main focus is the Westboro Baptist Church and how they keep winning their cases. I'm also including a little bit about the Nazi Party. My objective is to persuade the class that the WBC is crossing the lines with their first amendment rights, and are (for lack of a better word) intruding on people's civil rights. Considering they have caused emotional distress to countless people, you'd think they'd be off the streets. Anyways, I'm trying to tell the audience that there is a point where First amendment rights meets hate speech, and the WBC is my example, as well as the Nazi Party (the modern day one). Problem is, I'm not very good at arguments, and I want to ask for your help to build up a good argument against the WBC and the abuse of the First amendment. Any help is appreciated, thankkss!!
There was a quote in my undergrad dissertation that got the point across well. I was trying to find a middle-ground between free speech and college campus regulation, I was actually more sympathetic to the free-speech argument but came to the conclusion that it crosses the line when it becomes dehumanising. That's my dissertation in a nutshell! , let me go dig it out! Delgado & Yun, "Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation", California Law Review. Not directly relevant, but I'm sure you could apply the same principles. Hope that gives you an idea.
Well, the main argument against the WBC's so called "right to free speech" methods is the one where the government can implement restrictions on free speech if the act creates a clear and present danger. You can't shout "bomb!" on an airplane, or "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. Obviously those words would create a dangerous situation in which people could get seriously hurt or die. Just like you cannot (or shouldn't) be able to protest at a funeral. Emotions are already running high, and carrying signs that "Thank God" for the death of a loved one is sure to incite some type of conflict. I'm honestly surprised nothing severe has happened yet. You could probably get more arguments if you searched the news forum on here about WBC threads, especially in their Supreme Court cases. Or, at least get a better understanding of the situation.
IMO: Whenever I have to write something like this I first take the side of the position I'm arguing against. It's easy to argue against but its hard to really argue for. If you can argue for the position you do not support, then you can really start a conversation on the 1st amendment within yourself. Assume they are right and try to disprove it one by one. When people argue against something they often do not bother to know what they are truly arguing against. This causes tangents and rants. Research helps but Uunless you can constructively analyze it in your own terms and relevance it's just another rant.
Make sure you can back up everything you say so your facts can't be disputed. Most of what people respond to not what you say but how you say it, so spend some time practicing it when you've got it figured out. Often if you're confident and well presented people won't notice if you mess up.
