Labels Won't Stop Us From Speaking Up

So Label Me "Extremist"!
By Gina Giacopuzzi

I sat in church today and listened to one of the most beautiful women in America talk about her decision, made just one week ago, to become one of the most ostracized and criticized women in America. Rather than the regular sermon from Pastor Miles MacPherson, who is a celebrity for his former career in the NFL and his current church following of over 10,000 people, I listened to this girl who was vaulted to celebrity in a much different way.

Carrie Prejean, who was Miss California and also runner-up for Miss America one week ago, also happens to go to my church. In the final round of competition, gossip blogger Perez Hilton asked her about her beliefs on gay marriage. Prejean, with a glittering smile, said, "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman." With that simple comment, she lost the competition and won more attention than the winner herself.

Prejean talked today about that split-second decision she made, and how she felt more alone than ever before. Her statement attracted a maelstrom of criticism from the gay community and touched off a debate over whether one could express one's opinion if that opinion happened to be politically incorrect. She was immediately flown to New York to appear on the O'Reilly Factor, the Today Show, and pretty much every primetime news broadcast. The Miss California Organization prepped her on what to say, asking her to apologize and retract her statement. Prejean chose instead to defend her beliefs on national TV.

Earlier this month, on April 7, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a report on domestic terrorism that labeled pro-life supporters as "extremist" and a possible terrorist threat. DHS secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report, saying, "at the very edge of the [abortion] debate, at the very edge are the extremist groups that have committed violent crimes."Pro-lifers' constitutionally-held right to defend the unborn, and moral obligation to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, is now being filed in the same category as those who mail envelopes of anthrax and set off pipe bombs in subways.

The report is a drastic departure from U.S. judicial policy over the last 30 years. Free speech rights, and the protection of the First Amendment, have been routinely upheld by the Supreme Court, especially when it comes to political speech.

In defending our rights to free speech, pro-lifers have avenues for recourse, all of which justify the Congressional hearings that some opponents of the DHS report are calling for.

To begin with, the First Amendment is pretty straightforward. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That's it.

In interpreting the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, the Supreme Court has continually found that protected speech includes everything from obscenity to "fighting words". It has made every effort to prohibit governmental interference in the content of a message, or laws so vague that citizens would be tempted to keep quiet out of fear-exactly the type of laws that may result from the DHS's report. The Supreme Court has set a progressively more restricted definition in what qualifies as hate speech and unprotected speech. It has also ruled that government can only prosecute political dissidents or socially disruptive speech when the expression is intended to incite imminent lawless activity and is likely to do so.

Excuse me, but the priest standing outside the abortion clinic with his Bible is not anywhere near inciting lawless activity. Neither, for that matter, are the young men and women of Survivors who hold signs on street corners, outside political events, or in organized rallies. Granted, these performances sometimes raise emotions (and voices) in bystanders or counter protesters. Yet, even inflammatory messages are constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court found that the mere threats of "hecklers' vetoes" (disorder threatened by counterdemonstrators) should not hold free speech hostage. Intentionally provocative speech cannot be blameworthy for reactions (Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963).

It is ridiculous enough that merely stating the belief that unborn children are human beings could be filed under "intentionally provocative speech." But even if it were, it would be protected by the Constitution and 200-plus years of judicial opinions that defend even flag burning and obscenities-including the obscenities that Perez Hilton hurled at Prejean earlier this week for stating her opinion.

As I sat in church today, I thought about how easy it would have been for Prejean to give a non-answer to Hilton's question. It would be so easy for pro-lifers to back off, to let the DHS report slide. Thankfully, while the Survivors are battling it out on the street, the American Center for Law and Justice and several pro-life Congressional representatives are calling for a retraction of the DHS report and Congressional hearings to investigate the source of it. "

The DHS report represents at the very least-- bad judgment-- and at worst-- an Administration-backed effort to intimidate and silence pro-life supporters," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ in a statement.

Hilton's criticism, the loss of the Miss America crown, and the backlash from the gay community have not silenced Prejean. She has chosen to stand for her beliefs, even if doing so makes her a target. She knows, as do pro-lifers nationwide, that if someone goes to the trouble of singling you out, you must be doing something right.

Gina is a veteran of several Survivors ProLife Training Camps, and currently lives in San Diego where she plans to attend law school in August 2009.