Snyder v. Phelps: Supreme Court Decision

For those who have followed me long enough, months ago, I had written a piece titled Snyder v. Phelps: Presenting the Arguments. In it, I detailed the facts of the case as well as the arguments being made. I also stated my opinion in support of the Westboro Baptist Church freedom to protests despite their hateful message. 

As shown in my last post, I'm a strong supporter of the gay community, and in some respects, the Church's main message is anti-gay. God kills U.S. soldiers because of homosexuality, soldiers that die in war are secretly gay, their parents are sinners, etc. Their message is disgusting and if ever in Massachusetts, I would be the first to join and organized counter protests against them. Having said so, I believe that they have the right to preach their message (despite its hate) and the Supreme Court agrees. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the Church had the right to protest at soldier funerals even though the message is painful for the family and/or community (Justice Alito dissented); I must agree.

As I said in a previous post on the topic:

"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."

 My assumption of where the case would focus was also correct because the Court made its decision, not on the issue of privacy, but on the infliction of emotional distress. In its decision, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and– as it did here– inflict great pain... On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."

 The NYTimes article on the case reveals a lot about the Robert's Court. Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has dealt strongly with issues of the First amendment:

Last year, the court struck down laws limiting speech about politics and making it a crime to distribute depictions of cruelty to animals.... the court seems likely, based on the justices' questioning , to strike down a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors.

In all cases the SCOTUS has decided that Freedom of Speech takes precedent over many issues such as animal cruelty, political donations, and soon on violent video games.  In his defense of his strong and unwavering outline of Free speech in this country the Cheif Justice writes:

"Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open because speech on public occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."

 Roberts highlighted the two reasons that led the Court to decide in favor of the church, the NYTimes reports:

First, he said, its speech was on matters of public concern. While the messages on the signs carried by its members “may fall short of refined social or political commentary,” he wrote, “the issues they highlight — the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our nation, homosexuality in the military and scandals involving the Catholic clergy — are matters of public import.”
Second, the members of the church “had the right to be where they were.” They were picketing on a public street 1,000 feet from the site of the funeral; they complied with the law and with instructions from the police, and they protested quietly and without violence.

 Despite the decision, the court did establish that the regulations around protesting; where 44 states require that protests must take place at least 1000 ft from the funeral , were legitimate and constitutional. If the protesters have peacefully followed the law and its regulation no one should be punished for upsetting or arousing contempt.

Although the language of the decision is "sweeping" its effect is very limited; mostly to protests at or around funerals. More than 23 news organizations wrote to the court in briefs supporting the Church (including the NYTimes). 

Although I'm sad to hear their message, no one can deny the Church their right to protest and voice their opinions. Their protection to protest establishes my own protection to protest as well as yours. Be happy the Court is protecting your rights.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi. Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!