Posted by wlansden |
Filed under scotus, supreme court, general, news
By James Bowden
A grieving father’s loss is freedom of speech’s gain in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Snyder v. Phelps. A quick recitation of the facts: Fred Phelps is a special breed of great plains whack-job who put his crazy to work founding a church in Kansas in 1955 called the Westboro Baptist Church, whose sole beliefs appear to be (a) that America’s tolerance of homosexuality is bringing the wrath of God down on the country, in the form of wars, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and Lady Gaga; and (b) that maximizing media exposure via tasteless and vulgar protests is doing God’s work. The Westboro Baptist Church, which largely consists of the Phelps family, has been working overtime ever since American soldiers were deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, putting church tenet (b) into practice by showing up at military funerals to share with the grieving family and friends their belief that God wanted the deceased to die, making themselves the least welcome funeral attendees, ever. A little while back, the Westboro acolytes took a little trip up to Maryland to share their little message of hate with the Snyder family at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who had been killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder accordingly sued on a series of tort claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded Mr. Snyder millions of dollars, an amount that was reduced but not overturned by the District Court; the verdict was later overturned by the Fourth Circuit on First Amendment grounds, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court.
The ruling is consistent with the Roberts Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence. For example, recently the court held that videos depicting animal cruelty are protected speech. As much as I hate to say it, this case was pretty cut-and-dry. The Westboro Baptist Church protests on matters of public concern and were communicated peacefully, and the law recognizes that even hurtful speech is protected by the First Amendment. Here’s the money quote: “As a nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” Wow – Justice Roberts and his clerks could have been writers for the West Wing. One dissent was filed, though, by Justice Alito – whom as other commentators have pointed out is a strong advocate of First Amendment Rights [for corporations]. The germ of the dissent seems to be that speech, even speech on matters of public concern, can be so hurtful that it doesn’t get protection. Justice Alito has had an interesting history as far as public criticism. Oh, and he filed the lone dissent in the dog-fighting case, too.
My final thought on this decision is that pretty much everyone wants to see the Westboro nuts fall silent, but law isn’t the right muzzle. The First Amendment protects their absurd, outrageous, bigoted, tasteless, hurtful and foolish protests; but it does so on the presumption that the less quiet voice will be the one of reason. Alito makes a mistake in insisting that the First Amendment allows actions to preserve morality in public discourse – it doesn’t. The First Amendment is blind to the content of speech in the hopes that speakers will not be, and if civility exits public discourse, the First Amendment will not yield to save us from ourselves.
Currently rated 5.0 by 2 people
- Currently 5/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5