8 out of 9 Justices Recommend...
Wednesday, in an 8 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the mocking and vicious protest of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) outside the funeral of a fallen Marine was protected by the First Amendment.
On the surface, the ruling is not surprising. Courts have traditionally and rightly been very disinclined to narrow Free Speech rights. And, such a lopsided verdict, spanning the ideological divide, would typically be beyond reproach. Perhaps not in this instance, however.
The decision brings to a close a lawsuit brought by Albert Snyder. Mr. Snyder sued the "church" claiming that the provocative and extremely nasty signs held by WBC members at his son Matthew's funeral brought (intentionally) tremendous emotional pain to he and his family. A sampling of the vile signs included, "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're going to Hell," "God Hates the USA," "Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a gay slur.
By the way, in case you're not familiar with the case, the WBC essentially believes that God is smiting the United States/U.S. military for its tolerance of homosexuality. It should also be noted that the WBC is not affiliated with the Baptist Church as we know it. It claims to follow Primitive Baptist and Calvinist principles; although the WBC and its leader have been repudiated by mainstream Primitive Baptists. The WBC is led by Fred Phelps and is comprised of roughly 70 members, mostly from the large Phelps family.
Again, the ruling was consistent with numerous precedential decisions that protect vigorous debate on matters of public concern—no matter how offensive the tone.
However, there are potential flaws, in my view, with the majority's decision. First and foremost, courts, in matters of free speech, have almost always applied a different standard when the target of the free speech is a private citizen, rather than a public figure/entity. Somewhat surprisingly, the Justices chose to give little weight to the Snyder's private citizen status.
Incidently, Matthew Snyder (the deceased Marine) was not a homosexual, nor were he or his parents gay rights activists, or activists of any sort.
Amazingly, to me anyway, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said that "the frequency of the protests—and the church's practice of demonstrating against Catholics, Jews, and many other groups—is an indication that Phelps and his flock were not mounting a personal attack against Snyder but expressing deeply held views on public topics."
So, by extension, I guess it is fair to conclude that any individual/group, radical or otherwise, after having established a track record of protests against something he/she/they find to be objectionable, can randomly select any private citizen, and proceed to make that citizen a metaphorical whipping post.
That strikes me as a distortion of the First Amendment.
Additionally, contrary to Roberts' claim that the Phelps flock was not mounting a personal attack, was a poem on the WBC's website attacking the way in which the Snyder's raised their son (i.e. presumably as a Catholic).
As Justice Alito said in his dissent, "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."
Surely there are ample opportunities for groups of all sorts to air their strongly held views/grievances without needing to place innocent private citizens in the center of the storm.
The expression of one person's or group's rights should not impugn the rights of others.
On the surface, the ruling is not surprising. Courts have traditionally and rightly been very disinclined to narrow Free Speech rights. And, such a lopsided verdict, spanning the ideological divide, would typically be beyond reproach. Perhaps not in this instance, however.
The decision brings to a close a lawsuit brought by Albert Snyder. Mr. Snyder sued the "church" claiming that the provocative and extremely nasty signs held by WBC members at his son Matthew's funeral brought (intentionally) tremendous emotional pain to he and his family. A sampling of the vile signs included, "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're going to Hell," "God Hates the USA," "Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a gay slur.
By the way, in case you're not familiar with the case, the WBC essentially believes that God is smiting the United States/U.S. military for its tolerance of homosexuality. It should also be noted that the WBC is not affiliated with the Baptist Church as we know it. It claims to follow Primitive Baptist and Calvinist principles; although the WBC and its leader have been repudiated by mainstream Primitive Baptists. The WBC is led by Fred Phelps and is comprised of roughly 70 members, mostly from the large Phelps family.
Again, the ruling was consistent with numerous precedential decisions that protect vigorous debate on matters of public concern—no matter how offensive the tone.
However, there are potential flaws, in my view, with the majority's decision. First and foremost, courts, in matters of free speech, have almost always applied a different standard when the target of the free speech is a private citizen, rather than a public figure/entity. Somewhat surprisingly, the Justices chose to give little weight to the Snyder's private citizen status.
Incidently, Matthew Snyder (the deceased Marine) was not a homosexual, nor were he or his parents gay rights activists, or activists of any sort.
Amazingly, to me anyway, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said that "the frequency of the protests—and the church's practice of demonstrating against Catholics, Jews, and many other groups—is an indication that Phelps and his flock were not mounting a personal attack against Snyder but expressing deeply held views on public topics."
So, by extension, I guess it is fair to conclude that any individual/group, radical or otherwise, after having established a track record of protests against something he/she/they find to be objectionable, can randomly select any private citizen, and proceed to make that citizen a metaphorical whipping post.
That strikes me as a distortion of the First Amendment.
Additionally, contrary to Roberts' claim that the Phelps flock was not mounting a personal attack, was a poem on the WBC's website attacking the way in which the Snyder's raised their son (i.e. presumably as a Catholic).
As Justice Alito said in his dissent, "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."
Surely there are ample opportunities for groups of all sorts to air their strongly held views/grievances without needing to place innocent private citizens in the center of the storm.
The expression of one person's or group's rights should not impugn the rights of others.
Your point is correct in that you argue that this case turned on the specific facts related to whether the WBC spoke out on a matter of public or private concern, however, I disagree with your view of the outcome. The evidence showed that the main thrust of the speech was not about the individual Matthew Schneider, but rather about the political, albeit hateful and reprehensible, message regarding homosexuality. Had more of the signs been aimed at the fallen soldier, perhaps the outcome would have been different, but the fact is that almost every (if not every) sign held the group's views on the supposed repercussions acceptance of homosexuality has had on the country and the war.
I think that the Court's 1942 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which upheld the arrest of a Jehovah's witness who called a policeman "a goddamned racketeer" and a "damned facist" when he was being told to stop preaching was a similarly close call, but even closer. In that case, it seemed like the Jehovah's Witness could have aimed that comment at the police force in general, giving it overtones of public-matter speech. The court didn't think so. I think that this was an easier case, in that the WBC has made it clear that they use these funeral settings as forums on a public-matter message because of their incendiary nature, not because they primarily aim to attack the dead, although that seems to be a bonus for these ignorant people.
Reply to this
I largely agree with your analysis given that the case was decided without allowing (not sure why) the Internet evidence I referenced to be presented. With that evidence included, it is more difficult to conclude that there was not a personal element to Westboro's protest.
Moreover, I still find Roberts' rationale baffling. With his logic, innocent private citizens can be targeted and swept up in political firestorms in which they have no part. That seems incongrous.
Additionally, one can make the case for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in such cases because radical groups target such innocents partially for the shock value involved. Obviously, they have many other more relevant subjects to protest, but choose not to because the devastation they wreak on the innocent sadly draws more attention.
Reply to this