Snyder V. Phelps Case Study
In the case of Snyder V. Phelps, in which the Westboro Baptist Church has been for many years picketing military funerals, rights protect the church’s freedom of speech, and the freedom of assembly. Although the Supreme Court is basing the decision off of the first amendment right of freedom of speech, not only can this case be based on freedom of speech but also the citizens right of assembly. The church believes that American soldier’s deaths should be blamed on the fact that the United States tolerates homosexuality. The church rallied, holding signs that said, “God Hates You, You are going to hell,” etc. None of the signs had anything illegal written on them. The first amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” in which not only protects freedom of speech, but the right to a peaceably assembly(Annual Editions, 11) . The Westboro Baptist Church members have the right to picketing, and expressing their opinions. The Congress also may not make a law or rule that goes against the United States Citizens’ rights of freedom of assembly, speech and religion. Therefore ruling not in favor of Phelps, would go against what the Congress is allowed to rule, according to the first amendment. The church did nothing but express their opinion. There were no heard of threats, in which would be the only way the church would be subject to being charged of violating any type of public rights.
The freedom of speech allows people to speak upon their opinion whether it is hurtful or offensive, as long as it is not a threat upon someone. The church may have had offensive signs or said or acted hurtful towards the family of the deceased Soldier, but did not in fact threaten any one person. Therefore the church did no harm and did not violate the terms of freedom of speech. The church did no harm to the funeral processions, they just expressed their beliefs, in which is protected by the freedom of speech. The freedom of assembly is the right to come together and pursue or defend common interests, which is exactly what the church’s act was.
There is no amendment that says that it is against the law to picket at a military funeral. Although some may say it is disrespectful there is no law that says you must be respectful at a military funeral. Citizens may not have the same opinions about the homosexuality, or the soldiers, but that does not mean that what the church has been doing is necessarily wrong legally. Morally it may be wrong to some but when it comes to court morally is not an issue, simply laws, and the constitution is what comes into the ruling. Therefore according to the constitution, and the freedom of the United States citizens, ruling against Phelps, would go against the citizens right to assembly and freedom of speech, All in all I am in favor of Phelps.
Works Cited
Stinebrickner, Bruce, Ed., Annual Editions: American Government 11/12, Forty-first Edition. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, ISBN: 978-0-07-805082-4
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” in which not only protects freedom of speech, but the right to a peaceably assembly(Annual Editions, 11) . The Westboro Baptist Church members have the right to picketing, and expressing their opinions. The Congress also may not make a law or rule that goes against the United States Citizens’ rights of freedom of assembly, speech and religion. Therefore ruling not in favor of Phelps, would go against what the Congress is allowed to rule, according to the first amendment. The church did nothing but express their opinion. There were no heard of threats, in which would be the only way the church would be subject to being charged of violating any type of public rights.
The freedom of speech allows people to speak upon their opinion whether it is hurtful or offensive, as long as it is not a threat upon someone. The church may have had offensive signs or said or acted hurtful towards the family of the deceased Soldier, but did not in fact threaten any one person. Therefore the church did no harm and did not violate the terms of freedom of speech. The church did no harm to the funeral processions, they just expressed their beliefs, in which is protected by the freedom of speech. The freedom of assembly is the right to come together and pursue or defend common interests, which is exactly what the church’s act was.
There is no amendment that says that it is against the law to picket at a military funeral. Although some may say it is disrespectful there is no law that says you must be respectful at a military funeral. Citizens may not have the same opinions about the homosexuality, or the soldiers, but that does not mean that what the church has been doing is necessarily wrong legally. Morally it may be wrong to some but when it comes to court morally is not an issue, simply laws, and the constitution is what comes into the ruling. Therefore according to the constitution, and the freedom of the United States citizens, ruling against Phelps, would go against the citizens right to assembly and freedom of speech, All in all I am in favor of Phelps.
Works Cited
Stinebrickner, Bruce, Ed., Annual Editions: American Government 11/12, Forty-first Edition. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, ISBN: 978-0-07-805082-4