- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 0
- 6
-
Sparkle (0)
"Pray for more dead soldiers." "Semper fi fags." "Thank God for dead soldiers."
By now, you probably recognize some of those hateful messages from Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. In 2006, Phelps and his followers displayed those lovely signs and more while picketing the funeral of fallen Marine Matthew Snyder. Yesterday, ruling on the lawsuit against Phelps and his church filed in response, the Supreme Court upheld the church's right to protest in an 8-1 decision.
Last year, after an earlier ruling came down from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on this case, I had quite a few questions from friends about how our courts could allow something so horrible. This was my response, modified quite a bit to reflect the Supremes ruling yesterday.
The Question:
On Facebook, my MilFam friend Carrie asked a question about the Phelps case:
Now maybe you know but does the constitution protect people's right to protest ANYWHERE they want, or just their right to protest?
Background:
Fred Phelps is that fabulous guy from the Westboro Baptist Church who claims to be a "Christian" and travels the country with Hallmark Hall of Fame placards with such lovely quotes as "God Hates Fags," "You're Going to Hell," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and my personal favorite, "Semper fi fags." Classy guy, I know.
Mr. Phelps and his misguided followers decided to protest, along with their lovely signs, at the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in action in Iraq in 2006. His family was understandably displeased. Al Snyder, Matthew's father, sued Westboro Baptist Church, Mr. Phelps and several members of his family/church (the "Defendants") in federal court in Maryland. He argued that the members of the Westboro church invaded his privacy and caused intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Snyder won almost $11 million at trial. (This was later reduced to $5 million by the district court.)
Phelps appealed and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in September of 2009. No, Phelps was not represented by the ACLU, but they did file an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of Phelps, et al.
The Supreme Court, in a ruling issued yesterday, affirmed the Fourth Circuit, holding that the First Amendment shields the Westboro Chuch and Fred Phelps from tort liability.
The Fourth Circuit summed up the two sides quite nicely in their opinion:
Defendants’ rationale was quite simple. They traveled to Matthew Snyder’s funeral in order to publicize their message of God’s hatred of America for its tolerance of homosexuality. In Plaintiff’s eyes, Defendants turned the funeral for his son into a "media circus for their benefit."
The Defendants complied with local ordinances and police directions regarding staying a certain distance from the church. Mr. Snyder did not see the signs until he later saw a news broadcast with footage of the Phelps family at the Church.
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.
Let's start with something we should all recognize from the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment to the Constitution. It states:
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.
(The First Amendment also applies at the state and local level through the Fourteenth Amendment, in case you were wondering.)
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. It's a balancing act. Speech that causes physical harm isn't OK. You also won't be protected by the First Amendment if you decide to say something about an individual that is factually wrong. (You can't erect a sign in front of your house that says your neighbor is a pedophile unless he actually is.) However, just because speech is hateful or offensive does not mean that it can be suppressed. The government can place reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech but the restrictions have to be narrowly tailored and balance the interests, and rights, of everyone involved.
Here, Mr. Snyder's tort awards could only be upheld if the award was consistent with the Defendants' First Amendment guarantees. Speech, even if hateful and offensive, can still be protected speech if it isn't physically harmful or disruptive and it doesn't involve
