Answer Initial Post Question 250 words. Respond to 3 classmates 250 words each.
This week we are talking about the First Amendment Freedom of Speech. In your reading you saw the court’s analysis in Snyder v Phelps. This case was decided 8-1, not a common agreement in our now ideologically divided court. Justice Alito was the lone dissenter in the case.
Initial Post: For your discussion this week discuss:
1) What was the court’s ruling in Snyder v Phelps and what was Justice Alito’s argument in his dissenting opinion?
2) Do you agree with the ruling in the case? Why or why not?
3) Give an example of a situation where a public protest would not be a “matter or public concern” and therefore allowed.
Classmate 1 Jeffery: Snyder v Phelps (2011) was a volatile Supreme Court decision regarding the First Amendment and intentional emotional duress. In 2006 Albert Snyder and his family were attending the funeral of his son Matthew Snyder who was in the Marine Corps and died in an accident in the Iraq War. News of the funeral was in the local paper where the Westboro Baptist Church took notice. The church notified the local police that they would be picketing at the funeral.
The church positioned itself on public land in a cordoned-off area police had set up 1,000 feet away from the funeral out of sight and sound from those attending the funeral. The church displayed hateful messages directed at the United States Military for various different reasons, although they did not verbally yell any profanity. Hateful and disgraceful statements regarding the mourning family and the deceased were also posted on the church’s website. This is common practice for the Westboro Baptist Church and they have done the same thing for over a thousand other funerals in the United States over the years.
Albert Snyder had seen the demonstration in passing, however, had not seen the content of the sign until later that day on the news. After seeing the news and the repulsive online messages. Albert Snyder brought a civil suit against the Westboro Baptist Church and leaders, primarily Fred Phelps who was in charge of the church. Albert brought claims against the church including; intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The courts mainly focused on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
At the trial court, Albert Snyder won and was awarded a total of $11 million, although that number was lowered to approximately $5 million. The church led by Fred Phelps appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the court ruled in favor of the church and revered the ruling of the trial court. The Fourth Circuit stated the demonstration by the church was legal and protected under the First Amendment. This decision caused outrage throughout the United States, Albert Snyder appealed to the United States Supreme Court and a writ of certiorari was granted in 2010.
Shockingly, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit and ruling in favor of Fred Phelps and the church in an 8-1 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion; taking special notice to the claim of infliction of emotional distress. The majority ruled the context of how the church picketed was entitled to special protection of the First Amendment regardless of the content of the signs. The court added the funeral service was not disturbed because the church followed the direction of law enforcement and kept its distance and did not shout disparaging terms. Additionally, Albert Snyder was not aware of the exact purpose of the picketers or content of the signs until later that day, and was not a subject of the captive state doctrine; stating that Albert Snyder was not compelled or coerced to hear the negative speech.
The lone dissenter in this ruling was Justice Samuel Alito. His dissent advocated that our nation’s commitment to free speech is not a license for vicious verbal assaults. The church did not dispute the content of their picketing was so extreme and in character and went well beyond bounds of decency. The church believed that the First Amendment entitled them to openly demonstrate such beliefs, whereas Justice Alito stated they are wrong. Justice Alito stated the church attacked Albert Snyder and his deceased son at a vulnerable moment, and although no physical actions were exchanged the United States Supreme Court has recognized that extreme words by their utterance can inflict injury. He cited the fighting words doctrine established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), adding the words by the church violated this, therefore were a violation of the First Amendment.
I do not agree with the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court, I also believed Justice Alito’s opinion was grounded legally and was not based on emotion or personal opinion. The First Amendment has been ruled to not allow for absolute freedom in any possible expression or actions. The protest was not random and was specifically targeted and intended for the family of the deceased to see. The further action of talking ill of the deceased online added that their hateful actions were directed and not speaking for the sake of public concern. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) is a fine example and applies directly to this case because the words by the church had no social value and were insulting and slanderous.
There are many examples of how a protest cannot be a manner of public concern and still be allowed. Not all protest is against the Government or specific individuals. Some are the opinion of a small group against a private corporation. For example, a public demonstration outside Apple headquarters speaking against their decision to change the appearance of the phone is not a public concern but still allowed under the First Amendment. Or an online movement against a business for unethical business practices would also be allowed and protected speech.
References:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).
U.S. Const. amend I.
Classmate 2 Sherran: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that protesters at military funerals cannot be sued for inflicting emotional distress on the family of a dead soldier. The vote was 8 to 1. Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter. He viewed the protesters’ speech as targeting a private person the father of the dead soldier and said that the First Amendment does not give license to such outrageous conduct. “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated,” wrote Alito, “it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims[1].”
I do not agree with the Courts ruling in Snyder v Phelps. Freedom of speech is not regarded as absolute by some with most legal systems generally setting limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and protections, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and intellectual property[2]. It is easy to mistakenly interpret the First Amendment as granting people the right to say whatever they want, whenever, and wherever they want. However, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted that the First Amendment was never intended to provide such power, because it does not protect speech at all times and in all places[3]. The Court has consistently ruled that the government has the power to impose limits on free speech in regard to its time, place, and manner of delivery. Limitations based on time, place, and manner apply to all speech, regardless of the view expressed[4]. They are generally restrictions that are intended to balance other rights. For example, a time, place, and manner restriction might prohibit a noisy political demonstration at a politician’s home during the middle of the night, as that impinges upon the rights of the politician’s neighbors to quiet enjoyment of their own homes. An otherwise identical activity might be permitted if it happened at a different time (during the day), at a different place (public forum), or in a different manner (a silent protest). In my opinion, there is a time and place for everything, and the family of the slain Marine had the right to privacy and that was disrupted by an offensive protest.
Social media has become an outlet for public protests. Many that protest usually speak of unfair working conditions, or are just venting about leadership at their jobs, which can lead to that person being fired. An example of a public protest that is not a matter of public concern would be a nurse venting on social media about her leadership changing her duties. Many people may see the discussion on social media and it may cause an uproar in her community, but this would not be a cause for public concern. Now if that same nurse vented on social media about her duties effecting patient care then that would be a matter of public concern[5].
[1] Heather Kerrigan, Historic Documents of 2011, SAGE Publications, 2013
[2] “Freedom of Speech”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 April 2008
[3] City of Chicago v. Alexander IL App (1st) 122858. 2014.
[4] Emanuel, Steven L. (25 March 2020). Emanuel Crunchtime for Constitutional Law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. pp. 153–154
[5] Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 681 (1994)
Classmate 3 Crystal: The court’s ruling in Snyder v Phelps is that the Supreme Court held the lower court (the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals) reversal, explaining that speech deals with matters of public concern and on public issues are entitled to the special protection under the First Amendment because it serves “the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” The Supreme Court states that even though some of the picket signs targeted the Snyder Family, most of them related to the moral conduct of the US, the fate of the US, and homosexuality in the military. Further, because the church was on the public property on the opposite street, it was fine. Overall, the Court held that Phelps and company were only speaking on matters of public concern on public property, so they were entitled to protection under the Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment. Justice Alito’s argument was that “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.” He felt that Mr. Snyder was entitled to bury his son in peace and the members of the church robbed him of that right. He further argued that Mr. Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury based on the conduct at the funeral.
I do not agree with what the Supreme Court ruled. While there is an inherent right to Freedom of Speech, but once you deprive someone else of a liberty, which in this case is a peaceful funeral, that is where you’re not protected under freedom of speech. Further, Freedom of Speech has limits to slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, etc. In my opinion, this acts of protests at the funeral based on the servicemember being gay is obscene and should not have been protected.
I think if someone where to protest their dismissal, or being fired from a job, if they were to protest, this would be allowed under freedom of speech. I look forward to hearing others’ situations because I struggled with this part!
Reference:
Snyder v. Phelps. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 19, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-751
0 comments