The Case Snyder v Phelps, Research Paper Example

The case Snyder v Phelps concerns a funeral protest and a written “epic” that denounced Matthew Synder, a United States Marine killed in the line of duty, and his family. The respondents (“the Phelpses”), members of the Westboro Baptist Church, traveled from Kansas to Maryland, in search of military funerals to protest. On the day of Matthew Snyder’s funeral, the Phelpses lodged themselves outside of St. John’s Catholic elementary school in Westminster, Maryland, despite Matthew Snyder’s father (“Mr. Snyder”) testifying that his family “wanted it to be a private funeral.” Disregarding his wishes, the Phelpses held signs that read, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates Fags,” and “You’re Going to Hell” near the funeral grounds. The Phelpses’ expert conceded that the signs were “personal” to the Snyder family. They also posted an “epic poem” rife with disparaging epithets on their website titled, “The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder” (“the Epic”)  (Snyder v Phelps 3-10).

Mr. Snyder, whose diabetes and depression worsened as a result of viewing the content on the Phelpses’ website, sued in tort and won a jury verdict against the Phelpses.  Mr. Snyder described the effect of the Phelpses’ actions, stating, “I look at this as an assault on me. Somebody could have stabbed me in the arm or in the back and the wound would have healed. But I don’t think this will heal.” Military funeral ceremonies are such solemn occasions that, in all of recorded history, the Phelpses are the only individuals who have protested at funerals. Furthermore, the Phelpses interfered with Mr. Snyder’s grieving process and caused him physical and emotional harm by targeting his faith and defaming his son. Although the District Court rejected the Phelpses’ free speech and free exercise arguments, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed this verdict, arguing that the First Amendment protects “rhetorical hyperbole”. Therefore, the Phelpses were protected from any tort liability arising from their protest or their Epic (Snyder v Phelps 3-10).

The issues at the pith of this case concern the right to free speech guaranteed to all by the First Amendment. First, does the First Amendment allow Mr. Snyder, a plaintiff who had no prior connection to the “issues” cited by the Phelpses, to seek judicial appeal for the harm intentionally inflicted upon him by the Phelpses’ conduct during and after his son’s funeral? Second, should Mr. Snyder be required to prove that the Phelpses’ speech could “reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts” in order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional anguish? Third, should Mr. Snyder be entitled to a remedy for the Phelpses’ intentional intrusion on his privacy? Lastly, should Mr. Snyder’s First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and peaceable assembly outweigh the Phelpses’ First Amendment right to target hateful speech at him during his son’s funeral? (Snyder v Phelps iv).

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit claimed the church was speaking on “matters of public concern” rather than “matters of purely private significance” on public property in its majority opinion (8-1). In other words, their protest was not a personal affront on Mr. Snyder’s family, but a denunciation of homosexuality in the military, a political and social subject of concern to the community.  Therefore, the Phelpses’ speech is immunized by the First Amendment’s declaration that “the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” (Snyder v Phelps35).

The main issue at stake in this case is whether personal liberty should eclipse political liberty and if so, in what circumstances. Mr. Snyder has the political freedom to freely exercise his religious beliefs by gathering with other members of the Westboro Baptist Church to denounce homosexuality in the military as long as the denunciations are not overwhelmingly personal in nature, rendering them “matters of personal concern.” Mr. Snyder has an equally relevant personal right to grieve for his son at a military funeral. Just as the Phelpses can not prevent Mr. Snyder from holding a military funeral service for his son, Mr. Snyder can not prevent the Phelpses from protesting “matters of public concern” on “public grounds” near his son’s funeral.

Despite the accusations from Mr. Snyder, neither the plaintiff nor the respondent was impeded from exercising their rights. Mr. Snyder was cognizant of the fact that the Phelpses would be present on the day of his son’s funeral and would be protesting, making the event a difficult experience that could emotionally affect him, ultimately worsening his depression and diabetes. He could have avoided that situation entirely by exercising his right to grieve elsewhere, and even perhaps on private rather than public grounds. Thus, he had reasonable alternatives before holding the military funeral service for his son making a private grievance still possible and negating the claim that this was an invasion of his right to grieve in privacy.

Furthermore, Mr. Snyder cannot infringe upon an individual’s political liberty simply because it causes him emotional distress. If this were the case, many important debates would be outlawed and the principles undergirding our democracy and political rights would be imperiled by the whims of personal liberty. Protesting outside of an abortion clinic or an animal research facility is not illegal because no one’s personal liberty is being overwhelmingly compromised and the matter of abortion and treatment of animals are ones of public concern. Similarly, one should be able to protest a social and political “matter of public concern” – homosexuality in the military – on “public grounds” – the area in front of the St. John’s Catholic elementary school despite it causing someone personal distress.

Works Cited

Snyder v Phelps. 09-751 Supreme Court. 2006. American Bar Association. 13 Apr. 2015. <http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_09_751_Petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf>. Print.