I recently read Rosalie Berger Levinson’s article “Targeted Hate Speech and the First Amendment: How the Supreme Court Should Have Decided ‘Snyder’” The following passage stuck with me the most (p. 53):
The Fourth Circuit in Snyder acknowledged that private individuals, like Mr. Snyder, may be entitled to greater protection, but it held that the statements on the placards displayed by the Westboro Baptist Church expressed protected opinion or hyperbolic political speech, which may never form the basis for civil liability. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court did not address Mr. Snyder’s status as a private victim. Instead, it broadly ruled that the critical factor was the Westboro Baptist Church’s speech was of public concern.
It raised a few questions I don’t have clear answers for yet: Can an opinion voiced in public become so delusional that it ceases to be a “public concern” and rather a mental health – private – concern?
But this separation of mental health/private – public opinion might be problematic for people on the psychotic spectrum. If we accept this separation, can people on the spectrum then no longer be part of public discourse? I know there is a middle ground, but could it be defined in a legal manner that could get upheld by a less nuanced justice system?
Levinson, Berger, and Rosalie. “Targeted Hate Speech and the First Amendment: How the Supreme Court Should Have Decided “Snyder.”” Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2012.
CLARITY AND CHAOS 