Snyder vs. Phelps, Research Paper Example

Facts

Phelps F. leader of the extremist anti-homosexual church as well as his followers, Westboro Baptist Church, subscribe to a firm belief that God is currently punishing the United States because of its extreme tolerance and acceptance of the gay community, especially in the military. In an effort to demonstrate their beliefs, they often picket military funerals. The funeral in question was that of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, son of Albert Snyder. Matthew Snyder was killed in action in Iraq in 2006, and the Westboro Church displayed messages such as “God Hates the USA”, “Thank God for 9/11”, “Thank God for dead soldiers”, “Don’t Pray for the USA”. However, the church had notified the relevant authorities of their demonstration and had staged a demonstration on public land near a public street, as well as complying with all police instructions. During the picket, they sang hymns and recited bible verses relevant to their demonstration (Kathleen1-3).

Albert Snyder did not see the sign during the funeral neither was he able to read the messages. He did, know about the signs and the church’s message when he saw a news report about the funeral and the demonstration. Snyder’s reaction was to sue the church and Phelps, claiming among other things, severe emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy. Phelps maintained in his defense that his speech (the demonstration and the signs) was under the protection of the First Amendment clause on free speech, and he was well within his rights to air his opinion on what he termed as public concern. Westboro Church also posted defamatory material on their website denouncing the plaintiff and his ex-wife for raising their son as a Catholic. They claimed, “they (Snyder and his ex-wife) taught Matthew to defy the Creator”, “raised him for the devil” and “God was a liar”.

Issues

The issues brought before the court were as follows:

• Whether or not the First Amendment protects protests of public protesters at a funeral against tortuous liability.
• Were Westboro’s signs and comments displayed and aired during Matthew Snyder’s funeral related to matters of public concern?
• Were these views entitled to greater protection under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? (Liptak)

Decision

Initially, the jury found in favor of Snyder and awarded him damages, both punitive and compensatory to the tune of $10.9 million. This was later reduced to $5million. Westboro Baptist Church later appealed, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal sided with them set aside the lower courts award of $5 million. They further ordered that Snyder to pay $16,850 in legal fees.

The courts’ final holding was that a speech made on a public sidewalk, on public concern is not liable for a tort of public distress, even if the speech made is outrageous.

According to the courts, speech made on public matters is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment because public issues serve the principle of inhibitions, robustness, and openness. In order to determine whether or not the speech made by Phelps and his church were on issues of public concern; the court examined its context, content and form of the speech. However, none of these factors should have a determination on the case’s outcome and that all circumstances of the speech should be evaluated (Kathleen 4). Despite the fact that some of the messages on the picket signs were directed at the plaintiff, his family and ex-wife, majority of the messages of the signs were directed at matters of public concern regarding the morality and conduct of the U.S military. As such, the overall message was meant for the broader public, and it related to the public issues. In addition to this, there was no pre-existing relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant to imply that the message was a personal attack on the plaintiff and his family. There was no invasion of privacy since the information the Westboro Baptist Church had on the Snyder family was from Matthew Snyder’s obituary. Therefore, the Court held that Phelps and his congregation and followers were speaking on public issues (Sarat 105).

Conclusion

In my opinion, the decision made by the courts was not in firm accordance with the First Amendment. While true, that the Westboro Baptist Church was well within its rights to display it opinion, the first Amendment has limits on offending, shocking, and vulgar statements. Furthermore, a jury of Phelps’s peers found him liable for damages. The first Amendment does not give individuals the mandate to make offensive statements or to air shocking opinions under the guise of public issues.

Granted that only a few statements were directed to Snyder, Phelps remains liable under the law of Agency, since his fellow demonstrators could be eschewed as independent contractors. Those who made offensive statements are liable for the tort of emotional distress and if that is established, so does Phelps. To echo the words of Justice Samuel Alito,” our profound national commitment to free and open speech is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.”

Works Cited

Liptak, Adam. “Justices Take Up Funeral-Protest Case”. The New York Times. (2010-10-06).  Retrieved 2014-05-01. Print

Kathleen, Ruane. Funeral Protests: Selected Federal Laws and Constitutional Issues. New York. DIANE Publishing. Print

Sarat, Austin. Legal Responses to Religious Practices in the United States: Accommodation and Its Limits. Cambridge [UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print