When the announcement that Equality Club would be conducting a poll via text message came on over the intercom, I was skeptical. Surely no one, I thought as I strained to hear the announcements over the low din of third-hour chatter, would take the time to give their input on the as-of-then unannounced question. Entering the Commons at the beginning of fifth hour, I thought I had been correct: only two votes had been cast during all of fourth hour lunch.

The question projected above the shifting crowd of lunch eaters was, “Should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest at soldiers’ funerals?”  Feeling kind of stupid for standing by myself in the middle of the Commons by myself but otherwise not thinking much of my texted response, I indicated that yes, of course they should be allowed.  Then I thought nothing more of what I thought was an obvious answer.

When I came back with my soup, I was pleased to find that my peers had taken an interest. “Yes” and “no” answers were just about even. Admittedly, I didn’t really see how half of the voting population of Clayton’s lunch periods could disagree with the Supreme Court’s recent decision that Westboro’s actions are constitutional, but I wasn’t too surprised that the emotionally charged issue would elicit such responses.

What did surprise me, however, was a friend’s response to the displayed bar chart: “Considering Clayton’s usual political views, I can’t believe how many people think this intolerance should be allowed.”

Perhaps this is just my inner newspaper student talking, but excuse me? As any good, knowledgable Globie can tell you, the First Amendment grantees certain rights: of religion, speech, assembly, press, and petition. Now, I do not contest that Fred Phelps and company should not spread their horrible intolerance. I completely agree that people who picket funerals in order to blame minority groups for America’s woes are dimwitted cockroaches that I would like to stomp upon repeatedly.

But I value my right to say that and use stronger words were I so inclined. By preventing the WBC from expressing their ideas in a public space I am encroaching on my own rights. So although the Phelps family spews a horrible message that is contrary to my beliefs and the beliefs of most of our community, their right to spew that dirt should be allowed in the interest of preserving constitutional rights. The rest of use, meanwhile, should use our rights to express our disgust at our fellow citizens’ behavior.