Snyder v. Phelps: Presenting the arguments

       I've been following this case, and many of those involved for years now. It is, by far, my favorite Supreme Court case (although it still hasn't been decided). Allow me to tell you more about the case because it's background and storyline is truly remarkable. I was reminded of this (soon to be) landmark decision after I had read more about the Tuscon shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and supporters around her. The infamous Westboro Baptist Church now plans on protesting during the funerals of the federal Judge John Roll but more shockingly the funeral of the youngest fatality: 9 year old Christina Greene. On top of that, they are now praising the shooter for his actions. Don't get me wrong, the actions of the Church are both unethical and disgusting, but I believe that they are strongly supported by the Constitution. ......

           Before delving into this case we should dismiss an important legal myth: laws are guided by ethics. One of the very first things I learned in my very first legal course is that something can be legal but unethical, and ethical but illegal. For example, an employer can fire an employee if she doesn't like the tone the employee speaks to her in; the firing maybe be unethical because its a dumb reason, but its legal. Likewise, a church protecting illegal immigrants from federal government forces and prosecutors is ethical, however illegal. I say this case is going to be a landmark decision because it will affect how lower courts interpret the right to privacy, tort laws, free speech and much more for decades to come. It is for this reason that I decided to analyze this vital case in more depth. 

The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an extreme Christian church that believes that God kills U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as punishment for the United States’ acceptance of homosexuality and for the presence of gays in the U.S. military. The church expresses its message through several websites including www.godhatesfags.com and its public protests at funerals of U.S. soldiers. The members of the church have a history of protesting many soldier funerals with signs that read “God Hates Fags” and more (they also do more things, however, they've become famous from their funeral protests).

The Snyder’s story in this case begins when Albert Snyder’s son, Lance Corporal Mathew Snyder, was killed on March 3, 2006 during active service in Iraq. After his body was returned to the U.S., the family held a funeral for him on March 10, 2006 in Westminster, Maryland.

During the funeral, one thousand feet away, the Westboro Baptist Church was protesting with signs that read “Thank God for IEDs,” “Matt in Hell,” and “Fags die, God laughs.” The Church also posted an essay on their website titled “The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder” where they described that the Snyders “RIPPED that body apart and taught Mathew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery,” and “taught Mathew to be an idolater.”  

After realizing this, Al Snyder decided to file a lawsuit against the Church, Fred Phelps, the leader of the WBC, and anonymous members for several claims of defamation, two counts of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress in the federal court in Maryland. The Snyder family won their case, but upon appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court, the Church got the lower court decision overturned in their favor.

 This case is considered extremely important because it poses several questions in relation to tort law and the constitution: First,  if the restrictions of awarding damages to public figures due to defamation applies to the two private individuals about the private matter; second,  if the First Amendment protects the protesters at a funeral from liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the family of the deceased; third, if an individual attending a family funeral “constitutes a ‘captive audience’ who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication”; fourth, if the right of freedom of speech trumps the rights of freedom to peaceably assemble and freedom of religion. 

Since the first arguments began, the Supreme Court has been primarily concerned with the context of the WBC’s protest. There are several key facts that have struck a chord with the justices of the court. The vital question they are pursuing is whether the protest is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, or whether it can be considered harassment of a man (Al Snyder) in an especially vulnerable state. As a response to past protests of soldiers, 40 states passed laws to keep protesters away from funeral ceremonies. In Maryland’s law, protesters have to be one thousand feet away from the place where the funeral is held; the church complied with the law during its protest. In addition, Al Snyder had admitted that he couldn’t see or hear the protest; the only time he actually saw it was on the news afterward. Above all this, in order to see the essay, Mr. Snyder had to take initiative by going online to the Westboro Church’s website. In other words, the Church didn’t force their message in his face during the ceremony or online and therefore didn’t exploit a man in a vulnerable state. Additionally, because the protest wasn’t “forced” onto the family, they can’t be considered a “‘captive audience’ who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.” The distance is too large between the funeral and protest, to constitute direct infliction of emotional distress. 

The Snyder’s argue that even with the distance, the 1,500 mourners were “greeted” by the protesters as they entered the parking lot with the signs and offensive message. Snyder argues that “every aspect of the ceremony was tainted by their presence even though they were far away.” They also argue that because the WBC sent out press releases announcing the plans to protest, they effectively defamed the soldier and intentionally inflicted emotional distress to his family by taking action to make their message public. As for the website, Snyder argues that the internet is public domain and their essay was accessible to anybody online. They contend that all these facts show that the church acted to defame the soldier and his parents, intentionally inflict emotional distress upon the family, harass the mourners as they entered the funeral and are considered (in their opinion) a “captured audience” who is forced to hear the hateful message. Furthermore, the Snyders conclude that the limitations on defamation applied to public figures do not apply to the family because they are “private citizens.” The Church holds that Mathew’s high profile death makes the deceased and their family “public figures.”

 

There is no doubt that this case has helped split some of the nation’s greatest legal minds. It poses fundamental questions about where to draw the line between freedom of speech and harassment, what constitutes a “public figure”, and to what extent is hateful religious speech to be tolerated. The question of privacy is not as important in this case because the media attention toward the soldier’s death, family reaction as well as the community response, as shown when 1,500 mourners attended, all negate the argument that the ceremony was private. The court’s decision will create precedent for countless future rulings by courts on all stages. Its decision will affect every American and this case shouldn’t be taken lightly.What do you think? Do the Snyders' have claim? or the Church?

To learn more about these loonies, see their Wikipedia page. I've come to believe that from a purely First Amendment standpoint, the Church has the Constitution by their side. We may not like what they are saying, but there is no proof that their message has incited violence, and they peacefully protest without disturbing commerce and traffic. I believe that the REAL battle won't be over the First Amendment as hyped up by the media; it will be about different legal issues like intentional infliction of emotional distress, whether the distance regulations set by states are constitutional (shouldn't they be able to protest two feet away from the funeral if it's public domain?). What do you think?


***Update*** Since the Court has made a decision, I've released my commentary on there decision. To read it, click the title: "Snyder vs. Phelps: Supreme Court Decision"