Westboro Baptist's Funeral Protests Put Free Speech to Test

Saturday 02 October 2010

by: Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers | Report

WASHINGTON — The most vexing free speech fight in years confronts the Supreme Court on Wednesday, pitting a loud-mouthed, anti-gay Kansas church against a grieving Pennsylvania father.

The father, Albert Snyder, has already won the popular vote hands-down. Forty-eight states support him. So do 42 senators and all the major veterans' organizations.

The constitutional tally, though, isn't nearly so simple.

"The government may not curtail speech simply because the speaker's message may be offensive to his audience," University of Missouri Law School Professor Christina Wells noted in a legal filing.

In Snyder v. Phelps, justices will decide whether to protect speech that Wells characterized as "provocative, offensive and disrespectful." Wells acknowledged it might even be considered "contemptible."

For all the pain they may have caused, however the public rants against homosexuality by the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., might just be found to be protected by the First Amendment.

"This is obviously an emotion-laden case," said Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, but "the First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech against (the majority's) distaste. At the end of the day I think that's where the Supreme Court ends up."

Most everyone outside of the small Westboro Baptist Church voices distaste for how church members exploited the funeral of Albert Snyder's son Matthew.

Matthew Snyder was a 20-year-old Marine lance corporal and mechanic serving in Iraq's Anbar province when he died in a non-combat vehicle accident in March 2006. The family planned a private service at a Roman Catholic Church in Maryland.

Fred Phelps Sr., Westboro's 80-year-old pastor, thought the Snyder service could serve his church's purpose. The fundamentalist church, founded in 1955, has about 70 members, about 50 of whom are Phelps' children, grandchildren or in-laws.

Phelps wanted to hijack the March 10, 2006, funeral service as a pulpit to convey his belief that God was punishing the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality.

"The purpose of picketing in connection with funerals is to use an available public platform, when the living contemplate death, that there is a consequence for sin," the church's Topeka-based attorney, Margie J. Phelps, explained in a court brief.

Margie J. Phelps is the daughter of Fred Phelps Sr. She will argue the case Wednesday, defending what the funeral protesters did.

One of the protesters' signs said: "God Hates You." Another said: "You Are Going to Hell." Another said: "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." One sign included, as a legal brief explained, "a picture of two males performing anal sexual intercourse."

The seven protesters were about 1,000 feet from the church, and Albert Snyder didn't see the protest signs until viewing a television news show later that night. Snyder, however, said the demonstration and a related "epic poem" posted on the church's website, www.godhatesfags.com, exacerbated his diabetes and his depression.

"I look at this as an assault on me," Snyder testified. "Someone could have stabbed me in the arm or the back, and the wound would have healed. But I don't think this will heal."

He sued, claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress, and he won. A jury in 2007 awarded Snyder $10.9 million. A judge subsequently lowered the judgment to $5 million.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judgment. In part, the three appellate judges explained that the funeral protesters' signs "clearly contain imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric intended to spark debate," and were not impugning the Snyder family.

The 48 states that support Snyder's appeal retort that many legislatures have enacted laws limiting funeral protests. These laws could be undermined if the church wins. Led by Kansas Attorney General Steve Six, the states also that contend funerals are uniquely deserving of freedom from interruption.

"No traditional, necessary or even marginally valuable method of protest will be lost by holding the Phelpses accountable for their emotional terrorism," former acting solicitor general Walter Dellinger argued in the states' brief.

Previously, though, the Supreme Court has protected even grotesque exaggerations despite the pain they may cause. Notably, the court in 1988 unanimously rejected a $200,000 judgment against Hustler magazine for a satirical ad targeting the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

The satire depicted Falwell as supposedly having drunken carnal relations with his mother in an outhouse, among other things. In rejecting Falwell's suit, the Supreme Court stressed a painful constitutional principle likely to recur Wednesday.

"In the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment," the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, adding that constitutional protections apply "even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will."

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

i am confused by this. it

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 15:01 — j h waters (not verified)

i am confused by this. it does not look like anyone is contending the government restricted the church members' and pastor's free speech. isn't this a civil suit? the contention is not that laws were broken but that harm was done.

While the speech of the

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 15:11 — Leo Ray Ingle (not verified)

While the speech of the defendants was despicable, as soon as free speech is hedged about with exceptions it ceases to be free speech.
The plaintiffs would, of course, be free to picket the offending church till the cows come home or they tire of standing around, whichever comes first.
I don't respect the Supreme Court electing George W. Bush in 2000, but on this case, I hope they perform the function for which they were designed--to protect the minority from the majority.
The deceased gay soldier will live on in more hearts due to the publicity.
His grave will, in the long run, be more honored.
To the father, I say "Your son died for our freedom."
Respect his choice!

I wonder if this church is

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 15:15 — Mary Gilbert (not verified)

I wonder if this church is affiliated with any national Baptist organization. And if they are, I wonder whether there is an obligation for that organization to speak out against the positions and actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. The message of this church is so hate-filled that any responsible body with which it is associated should refute it and take appropriate action. I do hope that the nation's Baptists are moral enough to recognize when hate has replaced love as the central message.

The speech is contemptible,

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 16:02 — RoughAcres (not verified)

The speech is contemptible, as are the people involved, but we have a Constitution for a reason. Freedom of speech is a basic foundation of democracy; you have the freedom to reject Fred Phelps' opinion or to support it.

It pains me but I think the SCOTUS should make this very clear in its decision.

There is freedom of

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 16:50 — Michael T Heath (not verified)

There is freedom of religion, too, but some church that sacrificed babies in ritual slayings on their alter wouldn't be protected: the courts would have to agree that the babies are innocent of the twisted logic compelling that church's members to kill them. There are boundaries to all freedoms - when they impinge upon the freedoms of others. Not everything is spelled out for us, constitutionally. Remember (not an exact quote) "these and certain other unalienable rights"? Well, laying your child to rest without the horror of such ugly sentiments being shoved in your face must belong to that undefined category. Let these hate-mongers do their thing in a public park, or better yet: in their own incestuous church (50/70 members are Phelps? C'mon). They can't cause further hardship to grieving families who never associated with them in their lives. God will surely remember what they did, and what we did in reaction to their protests.

Free speech is a sticky

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 16:58 — Dawn Razor (not verified)

Free speech is a sticky issue yes, but lets fight free speech with free speech. The next time these horrible people protest somewhere there should be a counter protest of other people in strange costumes with some irritating elements like super-soakers and megaphones and just shout these hateful pricks down with random slogans and soak them with water until they go away.
And if there's any objections say that's it's an artistic representation of how the internet feels about these worthless 'church' people.

The dead Marine was not gay.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 17:32 — Anonymous (not verified)

The dead Marine was not gay. Westboro started out picketing funerals of gays but has switched to military funerals.

Regrettably, I'd have to

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 19:25 — Robert Walters (not verified)

Regrettably, I'd have to side with the free speech argument, vis-a-vis any "official" sanction or curbing of the despicable, contemptible conduct of the Phelps clan and their so-called "church." However, this is an appeal of a civil judgment, aimed at remediating a clear, identifiable harm inflicted by a tort-feasor against an innocent victim. In such a case, the First Amendment protection of speech may not so clearly apply. Unfortunately, the passage of state laws prohibiting such speech at funerals, depending upon how each of those statutes is drawn, may indeed run afoul of the First Amendment. Thus, this case provides a basis for SCOTUS to clearly delineate the reach of the First Amendment -- does it apply to all speech in all circumstances, or is it limited to the protection of speech from any government infringement only. If the latter, then Snyder's judgment should stand. If the former, then ANY hate speech is a protected genre. Appears the case-law precedents are a bit murky.

free speech in a church is

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 21:45 — Anonymous (not verified)

free speech in a church is not the same as free speech elsewhere. where does religion enter into this controversy. what kind of obloquy, what kind of new case law will the court come up with?

Fred Phelps has personally

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 00:44 — hbro (not verified)

Fred Phelps has personally attacked me.
He used the internet.
He was pretty nasty about it.
I stick with "I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".
When his traveling circus came to our town, we did not let them have the pleasure of seeing us lose our temper.
(Believe me, that wasn't easy.)
They left town a day early.
His daughter in law said they were going somewhere else because Plattsburgh was "boring".
They feed and thrive on two things, your anger and the publicity it gives them.
The appropriate response to his rabble rousing is to treat them like you would a badly brought up brat.

I've had the Phelps loonies

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 04:01 — Jody B. (not verified)

I've had the Phelps loonies get in my face and scream hateful things at me on several occasions. Yes, we have to protect free speech, but is there a line to be drawn? Is yelling "Fire!" without cause in a crowded theater protected free speech? How about neo-Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood or the KKK holding a rally in a black neighborhood? Is that free speech or intimidation? What about someone who stands outside a school playground and yells obscenities? If someone follows you and screams hateful things at you (my personal experience), or camps out at your home or business, is that free speech or harassment? If a group keeps you awake all night with a loudspeaker or megaphone, is that still free speech?

freedom of speech and

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 08:33 — wayne moss (not verified)

freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are basic principles of our republic. to counteract misguided people like the members of this church, people who differ should be prepared to attend each demonstration by the Westboro congregation in vastly greater numbers who will surround mourners and the protesters, separating them peacefully. For every member of Westboro ten should protect the mourners, quietly, without confrontation.

Should be interesting to see

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 08:35 — ung Bee (not verified)

Should be interesting to see how that turns out.

www.complete-privacy.es.tc

the ad in hustler magazine

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 08:47 — Anonymous (not verified)

the ad in hustler magazine with jerry falwell can't be compared to this situation. slander and libel cases are different for public figures like falwell because public figures are putting themselves out there for that sort of speech, while an ordinary, private citizen does not expect to be targeted. since the victim in this case was an ordinary citizen, the first amendment rights won't be quite as broad for the protesters.

I have a simple solution to

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 16:41 — Anonymous (not verified)

I have a simple solution to this problem. I think we can all agree that the message this inbred cesspool is complete bullshit. So, why not fight bullshit with bullshit? Any time these assholes start spewing their shit out of their inbred holes, get one of those trucks that cleans out port o potties, and hose these sorry excuses for human beings down. They deserve it. This way, there is no need to contest the constitution or limit our rights in any way. The port o potty truck is just the first thing that came to my mind. I'm sure there is something that can be used that might be more readily available.

Would it even be an issue of

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 18:32 — Anonymous (not verified)

Would it even be an issue of they were protesting funerals saying the Military is dieing because there a Black People in it? No. They would be silenced pretty damn fast. How is this different??

"Sticks and stones may break

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 23:50 — Scott ffolliott (not verified)

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

Understanding that the speech of the other that you despise is the speech that you most want to protect for it assures that your speech is protected. Having compassion for the speaker of the despised speech moves us further along in understanding what it is to be human.

“The only devils in this world are those running around in our own hearts,
and that is where all our battles should be fought.
~Mahatma Gandhi

Phelps came to Laramie to

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 00:13 — Anonymous (not verified)

Phelps came to Laramie to make noise after Matt Shepard was killed. Several hundred members of the community came out to politely but firmly show him the door. He has threatened to return, but always changed his mind.

It was a local thing, not another out of town group that made him feel unwelcome.

The supreme court set a low

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 15:02 — Jiminy Cricket (not verified)

The supreme court set a low standard for harmful speech when they said a student with a sign "Bong hits for Jesus" could be censored. It will be interesting to see what they'll do with this so-called church's hate speech. The church members seem only slightly more crazy than the R.A.T.S. majority of the court.

Westboro should always be

Tue, 10/05/2010 - 04:14 — Brady (not verified)

Westboro should always be met by a counter protest and pledge drive for charities they hate. They are not Christian, and not affiliated with actual baptist churches. They are Waco 2.0, though I do believe many of their younger members are holding in feelings of doubt.

@Leo Ray Ingle - one

Tue, 10/05/2010 - 11:26 — David Colburn (not verified)

@Leo Ray Ingle - one correction to your post: Matthew Snyder was NOT gay, as you suggested.

Phelps is not protesting against gays in the military. This is a common misconception about his hate mongering.

He protests at military funerals because he believes the death of ANY American soldier is God's retribution for allowing homosexuality to exist in our country.

"God hates fags," Phelps says, and because He's pissed off about that, He's been taking it out on us by allowing our servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Every military death is a result of America's sin. Every military funeral is an opportunity for Fred and his congregation to remind America that if we didn't have homosexuality, this brave person would be alive today.

Warped. Perverse. Insensitive. Outrageous. Disrespectful.

If Fred Phelps protests in the woods and no one from the media is there to cover it, does he make a sound?