Freedom Of Speech Key Question In Fred Phelps Supreme Court Case
| March 9th, 2010 | dangonzales |
Freedom of speech as established by the First Amendment has a few exceptions, so few in fact they can be listed here:
- obscenity (the most extreme forms of pornography)
- fighting words or calls to incite violence (hate-speech is protected however)
- imminent lawless action (yelling fire in a crowded theater)
- restrictions on commercial speech (the government can regulate what you can say when advertising a product)
- libel and defamation (making a deliberatly false statement in order to portray someone negatively)
The Phelps clan has taken to protesting outside military funerals because they believe those deaths are punishments from God for America’s tolerance of homosexuality. A number of states have passed laws establishing minimum distances for protests at funerals but the Phelps have always obeyed those laws so it’s not actually an issue in this case.
According to the Citizen Media Law Project the current case against the Phelps involves the issues of:
- Defamation
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
- Intrusion
- Publication of Private Facts
Here let the CMLP summarize just what happened:
Westboro Baptist Church pastor and founder Fred Phelps and members of his congregation picketed Matthew’s funeral, holding signs expressing anti-gay, anti-American, and anti-Catholic slogans, including “God hates you” and “You’re going to hell.”
Westboro Baptist Church also posted an essay on its website entitled “The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder.” In the essay, statements indicated that Albert and his wife “raised [Matthew] for the devil,” “RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery,” “taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity,” and “taught Matthew to be an idolator.”
Translation, the Phelps took private details about a private citizen and published them. The rules would apply differently if Marine Lance Cpl. Snyder were a public figure, ie an elected official but he’s not, he was a private citizen so that part of the case isn’t all that revolutionary.
Now we’re left with the interesting part of the case, do the obnoxious signs the Phelps typically carry at protests count as defamation against the soldier who’s funeral they were protesting that day?
In my opinion Fred Phelps’ signs are vulgar and offensive but I’m sorry, I listed the few exceptions to freedom of speech at the top of this post and expressing your political/religious views in a vulgar or offensive way not an exception, nor should it be. The 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals agrees with me, and according to the Washington Post the court ruled:
The signs could not be reasonably understood to be referring directly to Snyder and his son. And the court said that, as offensive as it found Phelps’s rhetoric, it was protected as speech concerning issues in the national debate.
“Notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words being challenged in these proceedings, we are constrained to conclude that the defendants’ signs . . . are constitutionally protected,” the court said, adding that the signs contained “imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric intended to spark debate about issues with which the defendants are concerned.”
Initially the Phelps were found civilly liable to the tune of 10.9 million dollars but that has been knocked down through the appeals process on the way up to the Supreme Court. The court will hear the case when it’s term begins in October. (more info at the Washington Post here)
photo via flickr user tub of goo (source)











