Disapproving of What Trump Says, But Defending His Right to Say It

by Robert F. DeFinis, Ed.D.

As an unapologetic defender of the Constitution of the United States, like most libertarians, I will always allow the rights of the citizenry to take precedent over bad taste and ignorant comments. I personally think you should practice tolerance and understanding, but no one can really regulate behavior — and certainly, the government should not.

In 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor (8-1) of Fred W. Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church fame, in the case Snyder v. Phelps. We have come to know Westboro Baptist Church as the funeral picketers, and they were infamously showcased in 1998 at the funeral of Matthew Shepard. Since that time, they have beefed up their efforts at pissing people off all over the world by picketing the funerals of American soldiers killed in action.

One of these solders was Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder. Westboro contends that they do so because God is punishing America for its condoning of homosexuality, and blah…blah…blah. Westboro decided to protest at Snyder’s funeral, armed with their trademark “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” merchandise.

Obviously, this did not sit well with the Snyder family, and subsequently sued Fred W. Phelps and the church. Though many of us would agree that Westboro folks are not the best representation of what America has to offer, we are reminded by Snyder v. Phelps that no matter how outrageous your message might be, in most cases, it will be protected (emphasis on most).

During the last year, we have witnessed Donald J. Trump offend, well…just about every demographic possible. This puts many libertarians in a difficult position. Do you argue for his constitutional rights to speak openly and freely, thus looking like a moronic surrogate attempting to defend the indefensible (like Jeffrey Lord)? Or do you suggest that because he is seeking the Presidency of the United States, he is somehow obligated (by an unwritten rule) to refrain from looking like a buffoon (like Democrats everywhere)?

This past week has been the ultimate test. The Donald once again has agitated a solid portion of the country with a counter-comment directed towards the Khan family, who spoke last week at the Democratic National Convention. Mr. Khizr Khan (Gold Star Father) gave a convention performance for the ages (just ask any Democrat), and now has become this year’s version of the Republican’s 2008, “Joe the Plumber.” Mr. Khan questioned Trump’s intellect, and more specifically asked if he had ever read the Constitution.

In fairness to Mr. Khan, this is definitely something that is on all of our minds. Trump could not contain himself, of course, and attempted to explain his sacrifices in life in comparison to losing one’s life through military service. It did not go as planned.

What has the response and backlash really looked like, though? Mr. Khan is touring the media circuit like a show pony, Republicans continue to expand the ocean-like distance between themselves and their nominee, Democrats continue their dance of ineptness while no one watches, and Trump is still Trump. Basically a political wash.

However, both parties’ elites, select military personnel, and good old Never Trumpers are rallying behind the mantra of, “you cannot speak unkindly of Gold Star Parents.” It has come to my attention that this is the newest protected class of people. They are, as one pundit stated, “untouchable.” Interesting. Some have accepted the notion that: 1) you can have a group of people that no one else can speak about due to their circumstance; and 2) that this group can exercise their right to free speech publicly without a counter-argument.

While I personally think that American military service people are the backbone of the preservation of freedom and liberty, I am not sold that Republicans and Democrats authentically feel this way. Why? Instead of honoring Mr. Khan’s son at the convention, they opted to exploit pain and grief at the expense of these parents, knowing that a shark like Trump would take the bait. Checkmate.

I am almost positive that Trump does not consider, nor believe in, most of the nonsense that comes out of his mouth. This helps when I choose not to defend his right to sound like a goon, although I want to solely on principle and not position. It must have been difficult for the justices in Snyder v. Phelps to wrap their heads around why anyone would make such offensive statements, especially at a time when family and friends are mourning the loss of a loved one. Obviously, they had to look past emotion to reach their ultimate conclusion.

In an election that has tackled little in terms of substance and solutions, and focused on the fears and emotions of a struggling segment of society, I would suggest that we remain vigilant as libertarians to ensure that freedom and liberty is not curtailed — even when ridiculousness is at the core. I for one do not like the message or the messenger, and will gladly demonstrate my displeasure for fascist rhetoric on November 8.