Free Speech Case to Reach Supreme Court on Oct. 6th

[Cosima___J]

The Oct 4 issue of TIME magazine has an article called "The Price of Free Speech". (I tried to put up a link to the story, but TIME doesn't let you do that. There's only a very abridged version online)

So here are a few quotes from the article:

"A religious group pickets soldiers' funerals and taunts their families. Now the Supreme Court will decide if the First Amendment protects this kind of hatemongering."

"This is Matt's day, Albert Snyder kept telling himself that March morning in 2006, hours before he laid his only son to rest. This is about Matt. Concentrate on Matt. Ignore them.

"Them were the seven protesters he had been warned about who were planning to picket his son's funeral. They had never met Lance Coporal Matthew Snyder. They didn't know much about him except that he had been killed in Iraq the week before. And yet they had flown more than 1,000 miles to brandish signs sayig things like 'You're going to hell,' 'God hates fags' and 'Thank God for 9/11.' The 70 members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas stage protests at military funerals around the country because they believe God is punishing troops for America's tolerance of homosexuality - even when those killed, like Matt, were not gay - and that all of God's judgments must be celebrated.

"Al Snyder rerouted the funeral procession so his family wouldn't have to see the protesters, among them a 13-year-old girl with a blond ponytail who held a sign that said, 'Thank God for dead soldiers.' He wanted to spend the day thinking about his son, remembering Matt as the funny 20-year-old kid whose ears stuck out of his Marine cap.

"But Snyder couldn'tconcentrate during the funeral. He kept wondering how much of the protest the 1,200 mourners had seen as they dove to the church in Westminster, Md. Later that day, at the home of Snyder's parents, someone flicked on a news report about Matthew's funeral. Snyder saw the protest signs. He heard Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro church - most of its members are his relatives - spewing more hate. 'Turn it off! Turn it off!' someone yelled. Too late.

"Now, more than four years later, Snyder is still stuck on the day of Matt's funeral. 'Every time I think of him, I think of these a____.' says Snyder. 'I have to think of the shock that was on my daughter's face when she saw the signs. I have to see the hurt in my dad's eyes when his grandson gets killed and then he has to go through this.'

"Snyder ultimately sued Westboro, a move that set the stage for an epic First Amendment battle that will reach the Supreme Court on Oct. 6. What exactly does the First Amendment protect - the Phelpses' right to freedom of speech or Snyder's rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of religion? And what happens when these values are in conflict?

"In Oct 2007, a federal jury found Westboro members liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy against Al Snyder. It awarded Snyder $10.9 million in damages, which the judge eventually lowered to $5 million. But in September 2009, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, citing free-speech protections for the protesters. The appellate court added to the public outrage by ordering Snyder to pay the Phelpses' $16,510 in legal fees."

The article goes on to mention that attorneys general from 48 states and the District of Columbia have sided with Snyder. "Forty-two Senators - including a rare concurrence of Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell - filed a brief on Snyder's behalf.

"On the other side, the ACLU and other free-speech advocates are supporting Westboro's right to offend, as are many news organizations"

The article provides some info about this so-called church which was founded by Phelps in 1955. "The independent church, which the Southern Baptists Convention has roundly denounced, is not only anti-gay but also anti-Catholic (because priests are pedophiles), anti-Semitic (because Jews killed Jesus) and anti-America (because it's home to all these heathens). 'You cannot preah the Bible,' Phelps shouted at a recent service, 'if you don't preach God's hate!'"

There's a lot more to the article, but you get the idea.

Any thoughts about how the Supreme Court will decide this???

[Philoctetes]

I hope they side with Phelps.

[John F]

It's a hateful thing for people to do, but is it actually a crime? I didn't know that "intentional infliction of emotional distress" is illegal, but apparently it is in some jurisdictions, according to Wikipedia, and has been for a while.

I can see how acts of personal malice, like a death threat against someone in particular, might come under such a law. But this appears to have been a political demonstration, with no personal animus against Matthew Snyder or his family, who didn't actually see it. The wording of the charge, especially "intentional," hardly seems to apply.

Even so, maybe it's not surprising that a jury found for the Snyders, or that many politicians support them (attorney general is an elective office and often a stepping stone to higher office). The case pushes quite a few emotional hot buttons, and that's what can win or lose elections.

But I think the appeals court got it right, and wonder why the Supreme Court accepted the case. That often signals an intent to overrule, and this Supreme Court has been one of the most activist in recent history.

I wish Ralph were here to sort this out.

[RebLem]

People need to understand that part of the deal here in America is that everyone gets to say what he wants, as long as its not libelous or revelatory of national security secrets. Often, people get the idea that it is so to make them happy, and when it doesn't make people happy, its time to change it. But freedom imposes a harsh discipline. It is difficult to be free and to allow freedom even for scumsucking slimeballs like Fred Phelps and his cohort. Freedom isn't free.

[jbuck919]

People need to understand that part of the deal here in America is that everyone gets to say what he wants, as long as its not libelous or revelatory of national security secrets. Often, people get the idea that it is so to make them happy, and when it doesn't make people happy, its time to change it. But freedom imposes a harsh discipline. It is difficult to be free and to allow freedom even for scumsucking slimeballs like Fred Phelps and his cohort. Freedom isn't free.

Couldn't have said it better. Until we become of unified as a species in our opinion of what is good, if we want horrible things not to happen because of the threat of protest by decent citizens, we have to tolerate decent things being protested by horrible people.

[JackC]

Well, I'm not a big fan of an after-the-fact lawsuit for infliction of emotional distress, so I hope the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

That said, I don't think that our fundamental freedoms are endangered if some reasonable time, place and manner restrictions are placed on some speech - they already are. You cant show people having sex, regardless of what artistic or political statement you might think that might be making making, on CBS at 6:00 pm.

In my view, there is no reason why these families cannot be permitted to bury their sons and daughters in peace but rather should be required, at the most difficult times in their lives, to endure the disgusting hateful insults hurled by Westboro at them during their sons' funerals.

Keeping them away from the funeral would not be a significant curtailment of free speech. It wouldn't prevent these hateful rants from being made public or prevent and their "ideas" from being aired. The Westboro crew can spout their hate up and down the the streets all night for all I care. I really don't know how close the "protestors" were permitted to come to the funeral.

Though you can't stop them from marching on that day somewhere, I would be in favor of making reasonable provisions to keep them away from the funeral procession on the day of their son's funeral. I guess that makes me an reactionary trying to destroy the all the principles upon which the country was founded. Again, that is not the issue before the court right now, and I would affirm the dismissal of an after-the-fact lawsuit. But it is, at base, the more significant issue.

[John F]

In my view, there is no reason why these families cannot be permitted to bury their sons and daughters in peace but rather should be required, at the most difficult times in their lives, to endure the disgusting hateful insults hurled by Westboro at them during their sons' funerals.

Keeping them away from the funeral would not be a significant curtailment of free speech.

But according to the Time story, the protest wasn't actually at the funeral:

Al Snyder rerouted the funeral procession so his family wouldn't have to see the protesters

What seems to have distressed Mr. Snyder emotionally is this:

Snyder couldn't concentrate during the funeral. He kept wondering how much of the protest the 1,200 mourners had seen as they drove to the church in Westminster, Md. Later that day, at the home of Snyder's parents, someone flicked on a news report about Matthew's funeral. Snyder saw the protest signs. He heard Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro church - most of its members are his relatives - spewing more hate. 'Turn it off! Turn it off!' someone yelled. Too late.

To prevent Mr. Snyder's emotional distress, then, the TV news would have had to be censored in case he might happen to view it. And to prevent his mind from wandering during the funeral, the demonstration would have had to be banned altogether.

From the Time story, then, the question appears to be whether sparing people's feelings is good enough reason for censoring the news and banning a nonviolent demonstration. The Supreme Court has volunteered to give the answer.

[Cosima___J]

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro ... 1286934806

Austin Rhodes is a local (Augusta GA) radio talk show host. I wish I would be able to listen to his program when the Westboro church (church ???) gets its one hour of free airtime.