The Lengths of the First Amendment
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT- The First Amendment guarantees citizens rights to free speech in which everyone is allowed to voice their own opinion and form their own ideas. However, is there ever a time when the right of free speech is taken too far? This is the question that the justices of United States Supreme Court had to asked themselves in the case of Snyder vs. Phelps. Albert Snyder sued Fred Phelps after Phelps and his followers picketed within distance of funeral procession of Snyder’s son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. Lance Corporal Snyder was killed in Iraq serving our country, and Phelps picketed outside of the funeral with signs that read, “God Hates You”, “Thank God For Dead Soldiers”, “God Hates Fags”, etc. In a majority vote, it was decided that this case of picketing was legal under the rights of the First Amendment.
Background
Fred Phelps is the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church that believes that God punishes the United States for its tolerance on homosexuality especially within military branches. The church has picketed all across the United States outside of military bases, on public grounds, and at funerals of fallen military members. When Phelps became aware of the funeral for Matthew Snyder, it was no different; him and his followers traveled to Maryland with their signs to publicize their agenda within distance of the burial service. Albert Snyder sued the church for intentionally causing emotional stress on the Snyder family who was trying to put their son to rest peacefully. Snyder claimed that the picketing caused him a great deal of emotional unrest and that it turned a private matter into a publicity stunt. The District Court of Maryland used a jury for this case, and the jury found that Westboro was liable for the emotional stress because of the outrageous content of the signs. Phelps appealed the case because he thought that the First Amendment fully protected the rights of the church in this situation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in which they would review case at their level. It was decided by a majority vote that the Westboro Baptist Church was protected under the First Amendment, but two justices wrote concurring and dissenting opinions.
The Majority Opinion
The majority vote was written by Chief Justice Roberts. “Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case,” Roberts addressed. The circumstances of the case came down to the content, form, and context of the speech that Westboro members used. The issue with the content of the speech was if it relates to the public on a broad scale or if the speech was specifically directed to Matthew Snyder. The court upheld that the signs used did not personally attacked Snyder saying, “And even if a few of the signs-such as ‘”You’re Going to Hell”‘ and ‘”God Hates You”‘-were viewed as containing messages related Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.” The context of the speech was upheld to the fact that the church did their picketing in a public place, approved by local law enforcement, in which it was talking to society as a whole rather than the Snyder family. The court also made the claim that Phelps had no underlying reason to personally attack the Snyder family. “There was no pre-existing relationship or conflict between Westboro and Snyder that might suggest Westboro’s speech on public matters was intended to mask an attack on Snyder over a private matter,” stated Roberts. Snyder argued that the form of the speech was completely out of line and done in way that caused extreme hurt that even a jury could see. However, the church did their picketing on public grounds far enough away from the funeral and did not shout profanities or partake in physical violence. As a final statement, Roberts concluded, “What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that picketing was outrageous.” Snyder failed to show the court how much emotional stress the picketing caused him and also testified that he only saw the picketing on the news after the burial, so the church won the appeal. Phelps provided sufficient evidence that they did not intentionally make their protest about Snyder, and the court agreed that the picketing was geared towards the public as a whole. In regards to the First Amendment, Roberts explained, “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and-as it did here-inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course-to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
The Concurring Opinion
Written by Supreme Court Justice Breyer, he agreed with the majority vote, but thought that the court should not stop at the matter of public concern. “While I agree with the Court’s conclusion that the picketing addressed matters of public concern, I do not believe that our First Amendment analysis can stop at that point.” The picketing was done under public concern, but Breyer’s concurring opinion wondered if the court should have taken state laws of picketing into consideration. “As I understand the Court’s opinion, it does not hold or imply that the State is always powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection.” After the review of this case, picketing means should be looked at from state legislatures. Harming individuals is an offense that the justice system takes seriously, but the First Amendment might get in the way of similar cases if nothing is done for the protection of the victim in verbal instances.
The Dissenting Opinion
Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion in which he described that the discussion of public issues can be expressed without harming the lives of innocent people for no good reason; Alito does not believe the First Amendment protects the cruel speech that the Westboro Church used within distance of the funeral. “It [Firs Amendment] does not follow however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at the time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate.” Alito defended his position by first recognizing that the church could have chosen to protest at any other public location, but chose to have this picket outside of the funeral for publicity reasons. He addressed that the church even issues press releases before the pickets to ensure that they “attract public attention.” The church has threatened pickets in the past in exchange for publicity which shows that the church members are willing to do anything for attention. “Similarly, in 2006, the church got air time on a talk radio show in exchange for canceling its threated protest at the funeral of five Amish girls killed by a crazed gunman,” Alito used as an example. Because the pickets in this case were done outside of the funeral, Alito also explained that any bystander would conclude that the signs were addressed to the deceased. “Since respondents chose to stage their protest at Matthew Snyder’s funeral and not at any of the other countless available venues, a reasonable person would have assumed that there was a connection between the messages on the placards and the deceased.” Some of the signs read, “Fag Troops” which would imply to the bystander that the deceased was homosexual; that assumption is false. Alito also disagreed with the majority on the pickets having First Amendment protection on the basis of public grounds. He made this claim relating to physical assaults. “A physical assault may occur without trespassing; it is no defense that the perpetrator had ‘”the right to where [he was].'” And the same should be true with respect to unprotected speech.” However, physical assault is much easier to claim in court than verbal assault. States first need to decide in their jurisdiction what is defined as “severe emotional distress” caused by verbal assault before courts can rule a party liable. Alito ended his opinion like Roberts did addressing the First Amendment. “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to all the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.”
Now What
Albert Snyder and his family will continue to remember the man Matthew was and his dedication to his country, but will never forget the horrible things that Westboro protested only 300 feet from the burial site. As for Phelps, him and his followers have continued their protests and pickets all while being under the protection of the First Amendment. This case is a reminder to citizens that we live in a country that accepts multiple forms of free speech. That freedom is a big responsibility that citizens should not take for granted or abuse.
Journalism & Law 