WASHINGTON — — While members of Westboro Baptist Church waved a sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday thanking God for dead soldiers, the nine justices inside tried to define the line at which such public protests become personal attacks during arguments in an emotionally charged case prompted by the picketing of a Maryland Marine's funeral.
Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was 20 years old when he was killed in a Humvee accident in Iraq on March 3, 2006. A week later, publicity-seeking members of the fire-and-brimstone Kansas congregation — all strangers to the Snyders — appeared at his family's Catholic funeral service in Westminster with posters proclaiming sentiments like "God Hates America" and "Semper Fi Fags." They later posted online a diatribe blaming Snyder's death on the sins of the country and his divorced parents.
Snyder's father sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and initially won, though the multimillion-dollar verdict was overturned on appeal. That series of legal decisions vaulted the Maryland case to the country's highest court, where it's testing the boundaries of the First Amendment and putting liberal free-speech advocates in the position of siding with fringe Christians.
"The First Amendment is something that's so critical that it may, in this case, just trump the behavior that most people feel is pretty outrageous," said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.
The case put several specific questions before the court — addressing the rights of private versus public figures, whether free speech is more important than freedom of religion and peaceful assembly, and whether a funeral constitutes a captive audience that needs protection from certain communication. But at its heart are issues of intellectual freedom and human decency.
Snyder's lawyer, Sean E. Summers, said that the funeral protest was a targeted attack that stripped a family of its right to bury their son with dignity, causing the young man's father physical and mental harm by worsening his diabetes and depression.
"The private, targeted nature of the speech … is what makes it unprotected," Summers said.
But Westboro's side, presented by the lawyer-daughter of the Topeka church's founder, countered with claims that they were simply a "little church" preaching on issues of public interest at a public forum that was likely to draw attention.
29 comments:
this is so hard to belive!! i can not believe that a group of "church" people would do something like this. just because they think that our country suffer beacuse of families like this (which is ridicules) does not mean that they should have the right to protest at a funeral. whats more is that those are private events that the public isnt allowed to attend so they should have been allowed the freedom of speach in this case. i hope that the sepreme court does not vote in favor of these protesters because i know for a fact that no one would want that at a funeral for their loved one.
Well this is a tough case right here indeed. I'm a huge supporter of free speech, but the manner in which these people exercised it was hugely inappropriate, hateful, and deplorable. I can't really agree with abridging the freedom of speech however abhorant to me because of the potential pandora's box doing so might open. It is hard to take the side of such disgusting, ignorant human beings but the damage done to free speech if the other side wins is inpermisable. However, I find the lawyer and daughter of the church's founder's comments to ridiculously understate the cruelty of picketing like that at a funeral.
As horrible as it was for these people to invade the private funeral of this devastated family, I do not think that they were acting unconstitutionally. Although their speech was belligerent and downright upsetting, they have the right to say what they want, so long as their physical actions aren't harmful.
First of all, this is disgusting. That these people would protest like this at a man's funeral who died to protect them is despicable. But they are protected by the first amendment. Funerals are open to the public, therefore free speech is a right these people have. Of course, I would love for these people to be punished, but if we take away their free speech then we cannot complain if ours is ever taken away.
Protesting at a funeral??? Do they have any moral decency? Like we said in class, some states put restrictions on where people can protest. I think they should put some type of restriction so you can't protest at a funeral/cemetery whenever someone is being buried. I mean there are plenty of other places that are more appropriate to protest. Also don't blame his death on his parents divorce! that's just not right. If you have to blame it on something blame it on the Humvee. These people are low...I hope the father wins.
Yes, the First Amendment clearly states the right to free speech, but its still illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater. As well, funerals reign over other situations such as funeral processions have the right of way. The decision for this will be about what's appropriate and where it is appropriate. Interesting case.
This is a very emotional case. Freedom of speech and assembly is protected, yes, but not when it harms another person. The family should also possess the right to bury their son peacefully and without the degrading presence of protesters. The family's right, however, is not specifically protected in the Constitution, while the rights of the protesters are laid out in the first amendment.
People who don't know the family of the deceased in any way shouldn't be present at the funeral and shouldn't be allowed to say anything negative towards the family, especially after the family is grieving because of a death of one of their own. The protesting people can say what they want at public but certaintly not at a funeral of a soldier's family because that's a private matter that should only be between the soldier's family members.
First of all, I'm sad that these people are making God seem so angry and hateful. But that's besides the point, this is a difficult case because it deals with whether or not there should be restrictions on free speech. It's frustrating because it shows that one thing can screw up everything. It's really hard to determine what's right in this case, but I think it's okay for them to protest this in any public place, there's plenty of goons out there who feel like they have an opinion that needs to be known. However, I believe that states should have the decision whether or not to not allow protests in private places, and the family's should be able to chose whether or not they want the funeral to be private or public.
Oh My Gosh, this church is rediculous. The Supreme Court i feel, has the responsibility to midigated such behavior- not only is it detrimental to the private citizens of the country and disrespectful of a man who served this country, it is also destroying whatever morale the country had towards the war. The third consequense was there intended reaction, which is all well and good, but the other 2/3's mentioned here and who knows what other negative consequences (Hey, the Quran burnibg guy had to get his ideas from somewhere...) this behavior is unacceptable.
The Supreme Court, however, cannot mess with the First Amendment in and of itself- that would not be good for anything; but perhaps the judges can get them on a technicality: Like the funeral home has the right to deny service to anyone or something stupid like that. The church's lawyer does not sound like one who would now how to rebutt it, seeing as how here defense take sthe form of it being a "little church" basically, vying for attention.
Whatever the outcome, we can be sure of one thing: because this is not really a politically split (republicans are more for church rights but certaintly against anything antiwar, and democrats are hardpressed about the first amendment, but do not condone the stupidity and close-mindedness of one southern church) there will be a lot of flack and harsh words given for whatever the decision may be.
The Supreme court is going to have a difficult time deciding on this specific issue due to it's controversial topic.By applying the first amendment to this heinous act of protest, it inhibits families from burying their dead in both respect and in mournful fashion. If the court does side with the church they will face scrutiny based on moral injustice. However, in the end the SCOTUS will infact rule in favor of the soldier's father due not only to the public's opinion, but also because it violates freedom of religion, as well as freedom of a peaceful burying.
First of all, I don't see how someone who claims to be christian can go to a soldier's funeral with a sign saying "thank god for dead soldiers." Second, in my opinion, i feel that there should be some sort of limit of how you can express your freedom of speech. There's a time where the freedom of speech can be helpful and get things done that need to be done but then there are times that are just inappropriate for that. Protesting outside of someone's funeral for example is very inappropriate and I agree that it seemed like an intentional attack on the family to inflict emotional pain upon them. Yes, people should have the right to speak their mind (and they do) but the way it is done should be considered when dealing with inappropriate and unnecessary actions such as in this article.
Sometimes free speech goes a little too far. In instances like this, where a dead soldier can't be buried with dignity because some church group wants to come and blame his death on gays and his divorced parents, this is not free speech this is outright hate. Preaching hate should not be allowed to be called free speech because you are discriminating against others which goes against a fundamental civil right in this country. If God really hates gays and is taking his anger out on America, then he is not God and we need not worry about what happens when we die because we are all going to hell, including these great people, if God hates us this much. How do these people call themselves christians?
The 1st amendment only protects freedom of speech, but it does not protect all harm done by someone's speech, and causing physical as well as mental distress, that is not speech, and not protected under 1st amendment. Also, protest is protected under Bill of Rights but city police department should not allow the group to protest next to a funeral home, and if they must permit them, let them do it from a far distance which would not effect the rightful funeral of their child.
It amazes me how selfish, rude, and indecent the human race really is. To protest a soldiers funeral? Its ridiculous, I understand that the the first amendment gives us the right of freedom of speech, religion, press, protest and assembly; but the people who are practicing their freedom of speech, religion and protest here are just plain ignorant. If it weren't for that soldier and many others who have died fighting then they wouldn't have that right. Sure, people may think that this war is not one that the US should be fighting but the reality of it is, we are. So suck it up. && have the common curtsy to respect a families wishes of burying their deceased in peace.
I strongly believe that although we are guaranted the freedom of speech, you would hope they would respect those who lost their lives keeping us free. The men and woman in the armed services are helping us keep these freedoms. The protestors should find another way to express their anger towards political issues.
I don't believe this case should have been overturned. It was clearly an attack on this certain group of people and was not just a general statement. They went so far as to post comments on the internet stating that Snyder's death was to be blamed for the divorce of his parents! If that isn't setting a specific target I don't know what is.
These protestors are crossing a line that may not be defined in the Constitution but nonetheless they crossed the line. Heckling a fallen soldier and his family at that soldiers funeral, where people should be respected no matter what you feel about them, is un-American. These people are extremly misguided and need to think how they personally attacked a grieving family at a funeral. I doubt they will win the case because everyone has to have sympathy for the family in question.
This is rude and they shouldn't have spoken out like that at a dead soliders funeral. yeah they can practice their free speech but that was not the time or place for it.
it pains me to hear about people who disrespected a fallen soldiers funeral. I have mixed emotions because i feel like i cant be mad at people who are staying in their constitutional boundaries; but i feel like what they've done is un-patriotic.
OK no, this is not acceptable in any way you look at it. Yeah I get the whole right to petition and speech but the saying thank God your son died fighting for not just my freedom but the oppressed at his funeral? They can take their ideas to the street corner next to the homeless so they can do something worth their time by feeding them (the homeless) and actually help instead of whining in the most insensitive way ever. But if they can't figure that much out the law says that they are free to say anything they want. Fine by me but there should be restrictions on funerals not speech. If not approved by the family, people shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the funeral. Now everyone can be happy, except for the members of Westboro but that doesn't matter because nobody likes them anyways.
I believe that everyone should have the right to bury a loved one peacefully. There was no need for the picketing and harsh words and posters from people who didn't even know the young man. That however is no excuse, even if they did know him. A funeral is a hard enough occasion without having people insulting a lost loved one and it is very low. Soldiers out of everyone should get the upmost respect in any situation. This particualt soldier, died for his country and it's because of him that those people even had the legal right to do what they did. They had no moral right though.
This is a really interesting issue for the Supreme Court to be taking on. On one hand, while the type of speech that these people are exhibiting is totally uncalled for and directly insulting fallen soldiers, as long as they follow the rules by staying a certain distance away from the funeral, there's really nothing that the supreme court can do. While I don't approve of the protests, I think that the integrity of the first ammendment is stronger than the emotions of the individuals.
This type of protest is such a personal attack. It calls out soldiers, the men protecting our freedom of speech and expression, and criticizes them as well as their families for committing a sin, which without, we would have no rights at all. The morals of these people are ridiculous, thinking that they know what God thinks of soldiers. What kind of a church advocates calling other brothers and sisters fags? I don't believe freedom of speech is unlimited; there are limits on expression. This is one of those circumstances in which I am glad there are limits. It should be against the law to protest at a funeral: anyone with decent morals and common sense can respect someone's funeral, whether the deceased be soldier or not. This family was stripped of a God given right, and I can only hope that this "little church" can preach to their own crazy choir and stay of the lawns of the men that died for them.
I think that people have the right to say what they want even though it could be totally against what others such as myself believe. However, protesting this at a funeral is not necessary. There are moments when it is okay to do things like this but a funeral is not one of them. The Supreme Court should not have to make a law or something about something that should be based on common sense. Though if people do not realize it, I think it would be necessary for The Supreme court to do so.
The church is doing good, and protesting against what they believe. It's like they say, the freedom of speech. Only there should be certain places where the freedom of speech should be suspended. A funeral is a major place. Loved ones who have died should go in peace, and the people close to them should be able to sit quietly and remember them. They shouldn't have to listen to people protest and listen to them say "thank God for dead soldiers", it just isn't right. I think that there shold be a saying in where people can and can not protest, even in the case of freedom of speech.
I think this is ridiculous. I side completely with the Snyder family and think that the protesters were out of line and should have to pay. The baptists say that they were looking for a public forum in which they can speak their minds, but this was not a military funeral, it was a PRIVATE funeral. this group of protesters also brought upon a lot of emotional pain. if the supreme court sides in favor of the protesters then the next thing you know it will be perfectly legal for kids to bully each other to death because it was their constitutional right to tell that kid that he was and deserved to die. it has to end somewhere.
This is much like the case of Collins v. Smith wherein the American Nazi Party wanted to exercise their right of free speech by marching on Skokie, Illinois, the population of which consisted of many Jewish survivors of Hitler's holocaust. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that, even though the protest is specific and not nice, it would be unconstitutional to prevent the Nazi from their right of freedom of assembly. I think that in this case, the court has no choice but to side with the church, no matter how specific the protest was, because it would infringe upon their First Amendement rights.
I believe that the westboro baptist church had no right to be at the funeral protesting. Yes they have the right to free speech according to the first amendment, but there is nothing wrong with fighting in the war. Besides if we didn't have soldiers out there protecting us they would not be able to protest against anything.
Post a Comment