The United States prides itself on the freedoms that are afforded to each of its citizens. Among those freedoms is the first amendment freedom of speech. However, that freedom is often called into question. For instance, the Snyder v. Phelps case. In the Snyder v. Phelps case, Albert Snyder who is the father of Matthew A. Snyder, argues how the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) picketed his son’s funeral asserting offensive statements due to his Albert Snyder’s homosexuality. Moreover, Snyder filed a lawsuit against the WBC “for defamation, intrusion, upon seclusion, infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy” (“Snyder v.
Phelps” Wikipedia). The speech discussed in the Snyder v. Phelps case deserves the protection of the first amendment. From their view, the WBC organization was only discussing their general ideas of homosexuality and not necessarily insulting the Snyder family. The reason why they target the homosexual people is because they refer to Paul the Apostle who thought it was malevolent (“Westboro Baptist Church” GodHatesFags ). According to the WBC website, they also cited that the Old Testament under Moses law the penalty for homosexuality was death which means God is saying it is a terrible sin.
The WBC at that time had obeyed police law instructions and the picket was “approximately 100 feet [away] from the church” which concludes that it was barely noticeable to the public (“Snyder v. Phelps” Wikipedia). This clarifies that before the picketers protested against the Snyder’s funeral, they were granted permission by the police and followed the law. It did not necessarily mean that they intentionally caused them emotional stress. They followed police directions, kept their distance, and did not engage in any other disruptive behavior. Their actions did not really disrupt or impact the funeral in a meaningful way.
It is understandable why the Snyder’s would express this type of reaction against the Phelps speech. However, this does not mean that the WBC will stop picketing and displaying harsh statements against the Snyder’s family for homosexuality. Their speech was protected under the first amendment. As mentioned before, the WBC’s picketers abided police law orders and did not do this on their behalf. They were ranted the permission to do so with legal authority. There was no real intrusion into the Snyder’s privacy since all the information was already displayed in public.
The Snyder family on the other hand took it personal. The way they sued the WBC picketers for being offended with the signs they saw is nothing more than emotional stress. Furthermore, there was no real harm caused by this protest/speech since the father’s “emotional stress” as what he claims, could easily have been triggered by his son’s death. The fact that the father attended a trial and stated that they “turned this funeral into a media circuit and they wanted to hurt my family” and “they wanted their message heard and they didn’t care who they stepped over” was an exaggerated act.
Moreover, as the article continued to mention that he also said that “his emotional injuries, including becoming tearful, angry, and physically nauseated to the point the point that he would vomit” and “that the Defendants had placed a ‘bug’ in his head” is simply an overstatement. And this includes the phrase where he “called several expert witnesses who testified that worsening of his diabetes and severe depression [that] had resulted from the Defendants’ activities.
These statements are redundant for the trial judges to hear because this leads back to emotional stress. The WBC had no fault in worsening the Snyder’s family funeral causing more emotional distress towards the father. The father on the other hand inflicted that pain upon himself. It is understandable why the Snyder’s would express this type of reaction against the Phelps speech. However, this does not mean that the WBC will stop picketing and displaying harsh statements against the Snyder’s family for homosexuality. Their speech was protected under the first amendment.
As mentioned before, the WBC’s picketers abided police law orders and did not do this on their behalf. They were granted the permission to do so with legal authority. There was no real intrusion into the Snyder’s privacy since all the information was already displayed in public. Once the picketers gathered information on the funeral site, they then published that information on their website. Of course it would be considered privacy violation if they illegally did not obeyed police and federal law instructions, while purposely expose the information in public.
The Phelps speech against the Snyder’s felt into the two categories of the first amendment protection on “statements on matters of public concern that fail to contain a ‘provably false factual connotation’ [and] rhetorical hyperbole [such as] loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language” according to The Fourth Circuit (Sacks). In Deana Pollard Sacks article, “Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court’s Speech,” the author claims that The Fourth Circuit asserted that these two speech phrases are the ones protected under the first amendment.
Again, this concludes that the WBC and picketers had the right to display placards about homosexuality against the Snyder’s family and that it was legal. The Supreme Court later decided to rule in favor for the Phelps in a 8-1 vote. However, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the court’s decision stating: “[the] WBC should not have received First Amendment protection for intentionally launching a vicious verbal attack on a private individual and “the speech was specifically aimed at Snyder’s son” (“Snyder v. Phelps” Case Brief Summary).
In the Case Brief Summary article, Alito argued stating that the Supreme Court did not realize that the WBC picketers purposely had insulted the Snyder’s family. And furthermore, refused to acknowledge the fact that the speech intention was meant to aggravate his son, he also stated that “[it was done] for the purpose of increasing publicity of WBC’s views. ” It is understandable how the Snyder’s family felt outraged for having the picketers make harsh protest statement signs.
The first amendment should be limited with how freedom of speech can be use. There are many different kinds of restrictions on speech. Each case has to be decided depending on its merits such as balancing harm caused by that speech. However, in this case, the first amendment protects that speech. This is why the Bill of Rights, Law Enforcement, and Supreme Court decides what to protect. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that the WBC’s speech was protected under the first amendment.
The first amendment clearly states that: 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 (“Amendment I Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition” National Constitution Center). This means that there is no law where the government forbids any religious views. Because the WBC organization is known for expressing religious views, they were never violating any government law.
People have a right to express their religious and political opinions even when others find their views “outrageous. ” That is the purpose why it was written in the constitution. Unfortunately we live in a society where people make harsh statements which may offend others because one of our freedoms is freedom of speech. Furthermore, we are surrounded with people, internet, news media, journalists, bias, etc in which display criticism and make harsh statements for one another. Unless if those speeches are life threatening or insight a riot, that is where freedom of speech is limited.