The Supreme Court heard argument on Wednesday in the case of Snyder v. Phelps. Fred Phelps is the founder and pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist Christian church that contends that God kills soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality. In recent years, the church has gained notoriety for staging protests at the funerals of soldiers in order to draw attention to its message.
Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was a Marine who was killed on March 3, 2006, in Iraq. His body was returned to the United States, and his family held a funeral for him on March 10, 2006, in Westminster, Maryland. Phelps and members of his congregation picketed the funeral, displaying signs bearing virulently anti-gay slogans. One sign, drawing on LCpl. Snyder's status as a Marine, read "Semper Fi Fags." Another depicted two men engaged in anal intercourse. Phelps's message, apparently drawing on the biblical tale of Sodom, is that as long as the United States tolerates homosexuality Americans will suffer the same fate as the residents of Sodom. (There was no suggestion, by the way, that LCpl. Snyder was gay.)
On June 5, 2006, LCpl. Snyder's father filed a lawsuit against Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, alleging, among other things, that the defendants were liable for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. After trial, the jury awarded Mr. Snyder damages of $10.9 million. The trial judge reduced the damage award to $5 million. In 2008, a federal court of appeals held that Phelps's speech was protected by the First Amendment and therefore reversed the judgment below.
The central issue before the Supreme Court is whether the court of appeals was correct in ruling that Phelps' speech was protected by the First Amendment, which prohibits government from making any law "abridging the freedom of speech."
Mr. Snyder's position is straightforward: There is a time and a place for everything. Even if Phelps' offensive and odious speech is otherwise protected by the First Amendment, it is not constitutionally protected in the special circumstances of this case. A funeral is, after all, a solemn occasion at which mourners should be free to grieve in peace, without having to confront such odious and offensive messages. Thus, although Phelps may have a First Amendment right to display his odious and offensive signs on a public street or in a public park, he has no right to do so near a funeral.
As a matter of common sense, this may seem perfectly reasonable. As a matter of First Amendment law, however, it is flat-out wrong, as the court of appeals rightly held. Sometimes common sense misses the forest for the trees.
The central principle of the First Amendment is that government may not treat some ideas differently than others because people may find them odious or offensive. Had Phelps and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church carried signs praising the United States Marines, the Snyder family presumably would not have objected, and even if they had, no jury would have held Phelps liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This discrepancy is precisely what the First Amendment forbids.
If this were not so, then an anti-war demonstrator who burns a flag near a Veterans of Foreign Wars meeting, a protester who carries anti-sexual abuse placards in front of a Catholic Church, a civil rights marcher who accuses Southerners of being racist in Selma, Alabama, in the early 1960s, a Westboro Baptist Church member who shouts anti-gay-rights slogans near a rally for marriage equality, and a critic of Phelps who marches near the Westboro Baptist Church with signs attacking the church for being "un-Christian and un-American" could all be held liable for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, depending on the whims, biases, preferences and prejudices of twelve jurors.
This is not to say that government cannot address some of the problems posed by this case. But to do so, government must act neutrally. It cannot treat, and it cannot authorize jurors to treat, one idea as more offensive or more odious than another. It can, however, prohibit noise that might disrupt a funeral, gatherings that might block egress and ingress to a cemetery, and gatherings of people near a cemetery while a funeral is in process -- as long as the rule applies neutrally to all speakers, without regard to the message they wish to convey.
That is why the Supreme Court will hold that the jury verdict in this case violated the First Amendment.
While the First Amendment permits all speech , subject to neutral regulation, why isn't that a separate issue from the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, if the injury is real and sustained or caused post traumatic stress? Many years ago, I had a client come to me, asking me to litigate heavily so that his wife already borderline suicidal would commit suicide, better now rather than later. They had several young children. Truly this really happened. I declined to take the case as this was personally morally offensive to me. It would seem to me that another attorney would be allowed to litigate heavily, regardless of the outcome. I don't pretend to know the answer and I'm just as concerned about protecting free speech. Interested in your thoughts. FB, J.D. U of C '68
Thank you.
-Brandon
2) would the snyders have a better position if they used the argument that a funeral is a religious ceremony, and that the phelps crew is violating the snyder's civil rights by interfering with their right to practice their religion as they see fit---and therefore, phelps and co can be both sued and criminal charges filed
just askin';
God bless
Dr. O. P. Sudrania
The Phelps family can stand securely behind the First Amendment of our Constitution
and laugh all the way to the bank. And they can piously affirm that they obeyed the
LETTER of the law.
When the Westboro folks demonstrated in Reno, at a military funeral, they were surrounded by a
flag waving motorcycle group, and their chanting and signs of hatred were not seen nor heard.
Yes, free speech is protected, but the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of the free speech in private life are not. For example, my employers can fire me for calling them unfair bastards.That is completely legal.
And if I stand outside a funeral and disrupt it, I can't be jailed for my words. But the natural consequences of me getting sued for ruining the funeral certainly apply. I'm not a lawyer, but even I know THAT.
If Westboro did their thing at a memorial day parade, the Legion or VFW conventions, military school graduations, or even a military open house I would have no problem. It is their choice of venue that makes what they do wrong, Constitution not withstanding. There are limits on "fee" speech. Do not forget that "peaceably assemble is part of the First as well. From what I have seen they are not all that peaceful!
TSG USAF
Maj CAP
Is mr stone a lawyer? For that matter, are the members of the sc 'really' lawyers?
As I said before; "If Westboro did their thing at a memorial day parade, the Legion or VFW conventions, military school graduations, or even a military open house I would have no problem. It is their choice of venue that makes what they do wrong, Constitution not withstanding. There are limits on "free" speech."
Furthermore, your understanding of protected speech appears to be flawed, as the conveyed message is, in fact, subject to scrutiny and not protected when made not to voice opinion but rather to cause harm, such as in the classic example of shouting "Fire!" in a movie theatre. Putting aside for the moment the other laws that were broken, as there was no representative subject of protest at this private funeral, choosing that location was demonstrably inflammatory. Your argument of unbiased application only holds, such as in the examples you cited, were Phelps to have staged his protest at a public event or relevant venue such as a military recruitment or government office.
It's equally important to remember that the standard for civil harm does not need to meet the same measure as for criminality; the most famous example of which being in the Simpson case where he was acquitted of murder yet held civilly responsible for damages.
This is why both you and the appellant court are disastrously wrong and why the Supreme Court will uphold the original verdict.
That means your boss still has the right to fire you if he doesn't like what you say to him. You might also get an earfull from your next door neighbor about about something you say to which he/she objects.
It follows that if you saw one of these "Church" members on the street, you could loudly and verbally take him/her to task for the content of their speech and they manner of its practice. You could also
picket their "Church" with signs that say they will all go to hell for "judging" their fellow man. There are no restrictions on your rights as an individual to speak up about the "Church"s" actions and to otherwise legally protest their activities. Or, would you get arrested for "disturbing the peace"?
Anyway, where are the protestors in front of this "Church"?