iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Military Funeral Protests

MARK SHERMAN   09/30/10 07:59 AM ET   AP

Supreme Court Funeral Protest

YORK, Pa. — One thing Al Snyder wants to make clear: His boy fought and died for freedom in Iraq, but not for the right of some "wackos" to spew hate at soldiers' funerals under the protection of the Constitution.

"It's an insult to myself, my family and the veterans to say this is what our military men and women died for," Snyder says, barely concealing his anger.

Yet more than four years after the death of his only son, Matthew, Snyder is in the middle of a Supreme Court case that raises almost precisely that issue.

The court is set to decide whether members of a fundamentalist church in Kansas who picketed Matthew's funeral with signs bearing anti-gay and anti-Catholic invective have a constitutional right to say what they want.

Or, in intruding on a private citizen's funeral in a hurtful way, have the protesters crossed a line and given Snyder the right to collect millions of dollars for the emotional pain they caused?

The justices will hear arguments in the case next Wednesday.

The case is shaping up as a potentially important test of the First Amendment. "The difficulty in this case is that the speech occurs at the most personal and sensitive of times," said Cliff Sloan, a First Amendment expert at the Skadden, Arps law firm and the former publisher of Slate magazine.

Margie Phelps, a daughter of the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church and the lawyer representing her family members at the Supreme Court, said that if the justices reinstate the $5 million judgment to Snyder, anyone who says anything upsetting to a mourner "is subject to a crushing penalty."

But Snyder said in an interview with The Associated Press that if he had the chance, he would tell the justices "that this isn't a case of free speech. It's case of harassment."

Snyder's nightmare began on a late winter night in 2006 when he flipped on the porch light and saw two uniformed Marines standing at the front door of his home in this small south central Pennsylvania city.

He knew right away that Matthew was dead, after just five weeks in Iraq.

He could accept his son's death because Matthew always wanted to be a soldier.

But Snyder was not prepared for what came next.

Eleven hundred miles away, in Topeka, Kan., the Rev. Fred Phelps and other family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church decided that Snyder's funeral at a Catholic church in Westminster, Md., would be their next stop.

Phelps and his small band of followers have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

They showed up with the usual signs, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're Going to Hell," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.

The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

Several weeks later, as Snyder surfed the Internet for tributes to Matthew from other soldiers and strangers, he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.

That's when he decided to take action and soon filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

Then the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

The idea that the picketers' rights might trump his own led Snyder to continue the lawsuit. "They want to use the First Amendment as both a sword and a shield and that's not right," he said.

The Supreme Court gave him some hope that, in deciding to hear the case, the justices might say that funerals are different.

Phelps and his followers do not limit themselves to funerals. They have been protesting for decades, about homosexuality, abortion, Catholics and Jews. The court is made up of six Catholics and three Jews.

The Phelpses have even picketed unlikely targets, college students and breast-cancer survivors, to call attention to their belief that God is angry with the United States.

When Chief Justice John Roberts appeared in Lawrence, Kan., in 2008, Westboro protesters were there as well.

Asked about free speech cases that day, Roberts said, "It's certainly the responsibility of the Supreme Court to uphold freedom of speech, even when it's unpopular."

Media organizations, including The Associated Press, are urging the court to side with the Phelpses despite what they call the church's "deeply offensive" message.

The groups said that "to silence a fringe messenger because of the distastefulness of the message is antithetical to the First Amendment's most basic precepts."

Other groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, are not taking sides, but say the case is a poor one for making any broad pronouncements about the First Amendment that could inhibit religious expression. Some conservative groups are concerned that a ruling for Snyder could be used to limit anti-abortion protests.

On the other side, all the states, except Maine and Virginia, and veterans groups say that the court should stand behind state laws that limit funeral protests and recognize that mourners at a funeral have a right to be left alone.

The church's lawyer said the outcome of the case will not affect the work of her father and his flock. "The Westboro Baptist Church will talk to the nation until the job is done," Margie Phelps said.

Snyder said he thinks a victory would "put a dent" in the Phelpses' ability to travel far and wide to other military funerals.

He wants other parents, having just been told a child was killed in action, not to have worry that the funeral might be disrupted. "I had one chance to bury my son and it was taken from me," Snyder said.

But he also struck a more ominous tone. "It has to be stopped," Snyder said. "If the courts don't stop it, believe me, someone is going to."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
YORK, Pa. — One thing Al Snyder wants to make clear: His boy fought and died for freedom in Iraq, but not for the right of some "wackos" to spew hate at soldiers' funerals under the protection o...
YORK, Pa. — One thing Al Snyder wants to make clear: His boy fought and died for freedom in Iraq, but not for the right of some "wackos" to spew hate at soldiers' funerals under the protection o...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,198
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (24 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MsMcgee
06:56 AM on 10/20/2010
These people are worse than hateful, and a disgrace to anything even remotely related to what religion is supposed to be about. Their toxic venom should not only be considered harassment, but it should absolutely be considered as a hate crime.

This is one example of why I want nothing to do with any religion. I hope the SC mops the floor with these dirt bags.
03:44 PM on 10/06/2010
Sure, let Rev. Fred Phelps and his church protest at funerals, but Fred, don't be surprised if others come and protest at your church. Remember Free Speech protects those protesters too. What's good for the goose in good for the gander.
09:54 PM on 10/04/2010
Wow. So, we can harass anyone we want in any manner we wish, and it's free speech? Cool.
07:10 PM on 10/02/2010
Kudos to the bikers that show up with their hogs and drown out "Reverend Phelps" and his fascist groupies during funerals! May your lives be long and your harleys loud.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brothaman2k
06:12 PM on 10/02/2010
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected because in doing so falsely you create a public danger. There is nothing they are doing that are putting people's lives together. They have a right to gather and protest, the fact that I and most sane people don't appreciate what they are protesting against is besides the point. Their rights must be protected because in protecting their's we protect our own.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patrick Garies
06:19 AM on 10/03/2010
I doubt that yelling "Fire!" will get people injured unless you're in a really densely-filled theater; at most, I'd generally expect wasted time and a bad experience (with regard to the movie). "Fire!" isn't what I'd call political speech though and I'm pretty sure that that's what the First Amendment was meant to protect.

I think you could reasonably apply the same analogy here with phrases like "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11". Due to the separation of church and state, the message, the venue, and the one-time nature of the event, I can see a finding that this isn't such speech either, particularly if they were being disruptive during the event rather than standing in silence. (I don't know all of the specifics).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brothaman2k
02:28 PM on 10/03/2010
Actually yelling "Fire!" can get people injured. Why? Because it CREATES PANIC. A place doesn't have to be densely populated or full for people to get run over, knocked to the floor or even trampled as people try to escape and eminent danger, even it the danger isn't real. It has nothing to do with whether the speech is political or not. It is not protected purely and simply because, barring their actually being a fire, the situation you caused by yelling that falsely actually creates a danger. That's why any speech that incites panic or violence isn't protected.

Protests are protected and it isn't about decorum or being quiet. You are allowed to protest because you are dissatisfied with something. It is guaranteed in the Constitution pure and simple, as well it should be. And as long as you are not inciting any kind of violence (calling some someone to be assaulted, killed, etc.) you can see whatever you want as loud as you feel like saying. The way some exercise their rights isn't exactly classy, but that isn't the point. And their right to do so insures your right to do so. Hopefully doing so in opposition to these people and their repugnant/ignorant stance.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
madisonhack
I prefer not to......
03:46 PM on 10/02/2010
I'm all for honoring the rights of these people of the WBC to say whatever demented and twisted things they want to. I'm also all for a couple hundred Iraqi veterans to meet with them on their way home and explain decency to them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Feanor
I want my jewels back.
02:37 PM on 10/02/2010
" There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

– Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942 "
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Don Knowles
12:40 AM on 10/02/2010
I'd like to see them camp outside Parris Island and hold up these signs. See what happens when you pick on people that will FIGHT back. Lot's of swamps down there. Just sayin.... OHH RAH!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:14 AM on 10/02/2010
Sad indeed that this outrageous conduct for power and financial gain are confused with freedom of speech. The use of violence, implication, and threats in order to intimidate, subjugate, or coerce for political gain is the essence of terrorism - why is it sanctioned here, but not overseas?.
10:40 PM on 10/01/2010
It's not the Supreme Court the Phelps family should fear. It's Jesus returning as the righteous judge of all at the end of time. He already told us he's going to say, "Come to my right hand and enter eternal life, you who fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, housed the homeless, cared for the sick and visited the jailed" (Matthew 25:31-46). Not "Come to my right hand and enter eternal life, you who disrupted funerals, distressed mourning families and hated human beings made in my image and likeness." How we treat others is how we treat Christ, according to his own gospel...
10:54 PM on 10/01/2010
oh stop
07:14 PM on 10/04/2010
You're absolutely correct, but the fashionably anti-religious hate being reminded that Christ's message was one of love, peace, and tolerance. Phelps and his followers have no time for that message, either. Interesting.
10:02 PM on 10/01/2010
America is great not because it protects the rights of those who are right, but because it protects the rights of those who are wrong. And these people couldn't be more wrong...both about their message and the manner in which they choose to say it.
photo
Me atlast
Live, Love, Paint
09:23 PM on 10/01/2010
As much as it saddens me to say it, I must defend this vile group's right to free speech.

That being said, can't we at least mandate some distance from events of a personal nature, like a funeral. Say.... a mile.... Make them get permits, and be in a designated area so that the procession could take an alternate route. There has to be some compromise I would think...

Yes they have the right in this country to express whatever ill-placed sentiment they might have, but not at the expense of others. I guarantee you that if something like that happened to me during the funeral of my beloved son, I would not be able to control my actions. That is a fact.
06:09 PM on 10/01/2010
My nephew was KIA in Afghanistan, and the WBC protested his service. The Patriot Guard kept them far enough away we couldn't hear or see them, at all. It's unfortunate they weren't active for this Marine's funeral. But the funny thing is, my nephew died believing that he was defending our freedom, and WBC chooses to put those freedoms to work by slandering and demonizing my nephew for something he had nothing to do with. So let these silly sad people screech; I'm proud of my nephew and there's nothing anybody can say or do to take that away. Hundreds wept at my nephew's funeral; millions will cheer at news of Phelps' death. That's his sad little Constitutionally-protected legacy.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Grin and Barret...
06:32 PM on 10/01/2010
God Bless the Patriot Guard.
06:03 PM on 10/01/2010
As despicable as the attitudes and platitudes of the Phelps family are, They are due the same free speech rights as every other citizen. The difference is; They EXERCISE them and it is within their rights to do so.

That's exactly how it supposed to work here, The first amendment is NOT to protect the speech every one agrees with [No one has a problem with that] It is for the unpopular speech.

"One thing Al Snyder wants to make clear: His boy fought and died for freedom in Iraq, but not for the right of some "wackos" to spew hate at soldiers' funerals under the protection of the Constitution."

Al Snyder, I am sorry for your loss but you are unequivocally, Utterly, & completely wrong about this, I hope you eventually come to an understanding of the freedoms our soldiers protect.

"It's an insult to myself, my family and the veterans to say this is what our military men and women died for," Snyder says, barely concealing his anger."

It certainly is insulting speech. But again you are wrong, This IS EXACTLY one of the freedoms The American military has been fighting to protect since it's inception.
10:23 PM on 10/01/2010
This is a bit more complicated than you're making it. Yes, freedom of speech needs to be protected and any limitations are a slippery slope. That said, others have rights as well and speech has repercussions. For instance, if you're a visitor in somebody else's home you can't expect to call their daughter ugly and then be allowed to stay. The homeowner has the right to kick you out for speech they disapprove of. Likewise a private funeral home has a right to operate their business as they please and keep cretins like the Phelps’ off their property, from disrupting their business and disturbing the peace. If some lunatic was protesting your house with h8ful speech like this you could place a restraining order on them. This isn’t to limit their speech, but to allow you the right to enjoy and use your property. The Phelps clan's freedom of speech doesn’t trump others’ rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Candi Cj Dubord Jensen
Caution: I will most likey offend you. Often.
10:59 PM on 10/01/2010
Spot on..I can't fan you again so I faved ya..
photo
ryker88
Only the pure in heart can make a good soup.
12:30 AM on 10/02/2010
You are exactly correct. These despicable beings have the right to protest but they have absolutely no right to disrupt a sad and solemn moment for the family and friends of a fallen soldier. That is just pathetic and hateful. These people are truly sick and to call themselves Christians is to mock what they claim to believe in. I wonder if the previous poster is a member of the group. No mentally healthy person would condone this, not a one.
photo
ThankGodhesgone
Always Progressive and loving the CONs meltdown.
12:24 AM on 10/02/2010
The Phelps inbred family are not expressing free speech. It is ha te speech. This is no different than thugs who burn crosses in front of the homes of African Amerincans, or paint swastikas on Jewish synagogues.
04:02 PM on 10/01/2010
It's amazing how people claim to be religious and then they protest a dead soldiers death? I'm not religious at all but I know that the bible preaches good to others. These Christian loons are hypocrites.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jimcracky
05:12 PM on 10/01/2010
The Phelps family and their odious church are beyond contempt, but if you think the Bible preaches "good to others" you have not read the Bible (so few have). The Bible teaches genocide, oppression and slavery, all as the will of God. Oh sure, it's messages about doing justice and loving your neighbor are there, but it is all a matter of emphasis. Pick and choose what works for you, and that is what the Phelps family does. Believe me, they will quote you chapter and verse for what they do. I know. I've stood toe-to-toe with them on at least 3 occasions now.
05:57 PM on 10/01/2010
Okay you're right that the bible includes that. But what i was referring to was jesus and his preachings. What good is it to believe in something like that and then protest a soldiers funeral? It's so inconsiderate when a family is trying to deal with their son's death. They aren't god so they shouldn't judge.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Grin and Barret...
06:36 PM on 10/01/2010
The scriptures do not teach  genocide, oppression and slavery, it describes historical occurrences while teaching quite the opposite. Phelps and his 'church' have a very narrow viewpoint and cherry picking scripture to support an antagonistic position is not what I would call loving your neighbor. They fail to remember who it is that judges, it is not us. We are supposed to minister and lead by example, preach the word but leave the choice to the individual and the judgments to God.