Snyder Vs. Phelps And It's Relation To The First Amendment
BUS 331
Research Paper
November 23, 2012
Snyder v. Phelps, and
It’s Relation to the First Amendment
For many years there have been issues about speaking out in a private or public setting. Some people might believe that there is no difference between the two, but there is a difference. Private settings only have a hand full of individuals speaking within a group, whereas in public settings people are speaking out to the world, more so because the speech is available to everyone. People are free to say whatever they want because they are protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment protects individuals “right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment). …show more content…
In brief, The First Amendment protects freedom of religion because it “prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment).
The First Amendment also “enforces the "separation of church and state"” (www.law.cornell.edu). The First Amendment protection for freedom of expression “consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief” (www.law.cornell.edu). Though there are several components of freedom of expression “the most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech” (www.law.cornell.edu). The First Amendment states that the “right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government”
(www.law.cornell.edu). The government has much to do when referring to freedom of speech. Protection from allowing people to communicate any levels of threat is the government’s job. The Supreme Court has a job and that is recognizing “that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence” (www.law.cornell.edu). If any speech causes a distraction of peace or implements violence then “The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech” (www.law.cornell.edu). When freedom of speech is violated serious cases can evolve. It is hard to prove that someone’s freedom of speech was violated when dealing with public speeches such “suits can cause individuals to keep quiet about issues of public concern” (http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/defamationandfirstamendment/index.htm).
When proving that one was threatened or violated by a speech given by someone one must prove
“that the defendant acted with actual malice with clear and convincing evidence” and one “must show that the publication was "of and concerning" himself or herself” (www.freedomforum.org), as in the case Snyder v. Phelps et al.. Snyder v. Phelps was a case that dealt with Albert Snyder, petitioner and Fred W Phelps, Sr. Snyder was the father of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in the line of duty. Snyder decided to have his son’s funeral at a home town Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. The funeral was advertised in local newspapers along with the time and location.
Phelps decided to travel to Maryland along with six other parishioners from Westboro Baptist to picket, after he became aware of the funeral time and location provided by the local newspaper. The picket was held near the Maryland State House, the United States Naval Academy, and Matthew Snyder’s funeral. At these location the picketers held signs stating “God Hates You,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Priest Rape Boys,” “God Hates Fags,” and “You’re Going to Hell.” The picketing was covered through the notification of authorities prior to the event. The event was nearby the funeral, but it was not visible from the funerals location. The picketers were not load or violent, nor did they come on the grounds were the funeral was being held. The top of the signs were visible in route to the funeral, but the actual words were not visible. Snyder believed that five state law torts claims were violated, defamation, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy. Westboro states that their speech was protected by the First Amendment. Since Snyder could not prove the elements for the tort claims of defamation and publicity given to private life the judgment awarded Westboro. The case was held for the other claims. The jury found for Snyder for the other claims and allowed $2.9 million compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages liable for Westboro. Believing that the jury verdict was excessive and that the judgment was on claims on First Amendment grounds, Westboro filed several post-trial motions. The punitive damages were remitted to $2.1 million by The District Court, but the verdict remained. Westboro argued at the Court of Appeals that their signs were protected under the First Amendment. The signs were reviewed and agreed that the First Amendment did cover Westboro signs because the signs were matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were hyperbolic rhetoric expressed. The speech must be proven to be public or private concern in order for the First Amendment to hold Westboro liable using the circumstances in this case.
The First Amendment protects speeches of matters public concern which is in the case of Westboros signs. Though some signs could be related to Matthew Snyder or Snyder’s it was considered public issues. Westboro signs did have some relation to Snyder’s funeral it was publically displayed and of public concern, not in any way was it of private concern. Snyder tried to argue that Westboro intent was to attack him and his family, but there was no evidence that they had any relation prior to the funeral. Westboro had been picketing for several years before the funeral of Snyder, and they have been of public issues. Snyder felt that Westboro used the funeral as a cushion to get his message out to a boarder audience, though he did use the places as a land mark to get his message across the speeches were still of public concern. Westboro had the right to be where they were, it was of public ground and the followed the procedure of letting the authorities know what they were doing and where. If the signs were saying opposite like “God Bless America” and “God Loves You” then Westboro would not be liable. Either way the speech was protected by the First Amendment, though the speech was upsetting to the Snyder it was still of public concern. Because of these reasons, the jury verdict on Westboro for tort liability on emotional distress must be set aside. The jury also found that Westboro was liable for intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy. However, Westboro was not close to the memorial service and it did not have any interference with the service itself. Since the findings for emotional distress was protected under the First Amendment, it is only right that intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy be set aside as well. In closing, I believe that the verdict was fair. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps it was an emotion factor that played with Snyder only because of the relation the speech had to his son. A person has to prove that any speech is a direct attack on him or her. The First Amendment covers if a speech is of public concern, no one can take the words and relate it to a private concern if it is solely a public concern. I also feel that the case was dealt accordingly. If there was a relation to Snyder and Westboro then the case would have a good chance of ruling opposite, but there was not. Westboro has picketed for many years prior to the funeral of Snyder and it is clearly that he knew how and what to do. The local newspaper advertised the funeral though one might not know that something like this would have evolved it was publically advertised. The speeches giving by the Westboro were of their beliefs, and the courts could not rule against one opinion.
In the ruling of the Court a good point was made
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even the hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from the tort liability for its picketing in this case.
The First Amendment protects everyone even if the speech is not of one’s acceptance it still must be review correctly before we make outrageous decision that violates one’s rights. I am glad that the District Court ruled like they did because it is fair and allowed for one to state their opinion and beliefs even if it does make one feel uncomfortable.
Works Cited
562 U.S. __ (2011)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment & http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/defamationandfirstamendment/index.htm
Research Paper
November 23, 2012
Snyder v. Phelps, and
It’s Relation to the First Amendment
For many years there have been issues about speaking out in a private or public setting. Some people might believe that there is no difference between the two, but there is a difference. Private settings only have a hand full of individuals speaking within a group, whereas in public settings people are speaking out to the world, more so because the speech is available to everyone. People are free to say whatever they want because they are protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment protects individuals “right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment). …show more content…
In brief, The First Amendment protects freedom of religion because it “prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment).
The First Amendment also “enforces the "separation of church and state"” (www.law.cornell.edu). The First Amendment protection for freedom of expression “consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief” (www.law.cornell.edu). Though there are several components of freedom of expression “the most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech” (www.law.cornell.edu). The First Amendment states that the “right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government”
(www.law.cornell.edu). The government has much to do when referring to freedom of speech. Protection from allowing people to communicate any levels of threat is the government’s job. The Supreme Court has a job and that is recognizing “that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence” (www.law.cornell.edu). If any speech causes a distraction of peace or implements violence then “The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech” (www.law.cornell.edu). When freedom of speech is violated serious cases can evolve. It is hard to prove that someone’s freedom of speech was violated when dealing with public speeches such “suits can cause individuals to keep quiet about issues of public concern” (http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/defamationandfirstamendment/index.htm).
When proving that one was threatened or violated by a speech given by someone one must prove
“that the defendant acted with actual malice with clear and convincing evidence” and one “must show that the publication was "of and concerning" himself or herself” (www.freedomforum.org), as in the case Snyder v. Phelps et al.. Snyder v. Phelps was a case that dealt with Albert Snyder, petitioner and Fred W Phelps, Sr. Snyder was the father of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in the line of duty. Snyder decided to have his son’s funeral at a home town Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. The funeral was advertised in local newspapers along with the time and location.
Phelps decided to travel to Maryland along with six other parishioners from Westboro Baptist to picket, after he became aware of the funeral time and location provided by the local newspaper. The picket was held near the Maryland State House, the United States Naval Academy, and Matthew Snyder’s funeral. At these location the picketers held signs stating “God Hates You,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Priest Rape Boys,” “God Hates Fags,” and “You’re Going to Hell.” The picketing was covered through the notification of authorities prior to the event. The event was nearby the funeral, but it was not visible from the funerals location. The picketers were not load or violent, nor did they come on the grounds were the funeral was being held. The top of the signs were visible in route to the funeral, but the actual words were not visible. Snyder believed that five state law torts claims were violated, defamation, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy. Westboro states that their speech was protected by the First Amendment. Since Snyder could not prove the elements for the tort claims of defamation and publicity given to private life the judgment awarded Westboro. The case was held for the other claims. The jury found for Snyder for the other claims and allowed $2.9 million compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages liable for Westboro. Believing that the jury verdict was excessive and that the judgment was on claims on First Amendment grounds, Westboro filed several post-trial motions. The punitive damages were remitted to $2.1 million by The District Court, but the verdict remained. Westboro argued at the Court of Appeals that their signs were protected under the First Amendment. The signs were reviewed and agreed that the First Amendment did cover Westboro signs because the signs were matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were hyperbolic rhetoric expressed. The speech must be proven to be public or private concern in order for the First Amendment to hold Westboro liable using the circumstances in this case.
The First Amendment protects speeches of matters public concern which is in the case of Westboros signs. Though some signs could be related to Matthew Snyder or Snyder’s it was considered public issues. Westboro signs did have some relation to Snyder’s funeral it was publically displayed and of public concern, not in any way was it of private concern. Snyder tried to argue that Westboro intent was to attack him and his family, but there was no evidence that they had any relation prior to the funeral. Westboro had been picketing for several years before the funeral of Snyder, and they have been of public issues. Snyder felt that Westboro used the funeral as a cushion to get his message out to a boarder audience, though he did use the places as a land mark to get his message across the speeches were still of public concern. Westboro had the right to be where they were, it was of public ground and the followed the procedure of letting the authorities know what they were doing and where. If the signs were saying opposite like “God Bless America” and “God Loves You” then Westboro would not be liable. Either way the speech was protected by the First Amendment, though the speech was upsetting to the Snyder it was still of public concern. Because of these reasons, the jury verdict on Westboro for tort liability on emotional distress must be set aside. The jury also found that Westboro was liable for intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy. However, Westboro was not close to the memorial service and it did not have any interference with the service itself. Since the findings for emotional distress was protected under the First Amendment, it is only right that intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy be set aside as well. In closing, I believe that the verdict was fair. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps it was an emotion factor that played with Snyder only because of the relation the speech had to his son. A person has to prove that any speech is a direct attack on him or her. The First Amendment covers if a speech is of public concern, no one can take the words and relate it to a private concern if it is solely a public concern. I also feel that the case was dealt accordingly. If there was a relation to Snyder and Westboro then the case would have a good chance of ruling opposite, but there was not. Westboro has picketed for many years prior to the funeral of Snyder and it is clearly that he knew how and what to do. The local newspaper advertised the funeral though one might not know that something like this would have evolved it was publically advertised. The speeches giving by the Westboro were of their beliefs, and the courts could not rule against one opinion.
In the ruling of the Court a good point was made
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even the hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from the tort liability for its picketing in this case.
The First Amendment protects everyone even if the speech is not of one’s acceptance it still must be review correctly before we make outrageous decision that violates one’s rights. I am glad that the District Court ruled like they did because it is fair and allowed for one to state their opinion and beliefs even if it does make one feel uncomfortable.
Works Cited
562 U.S. __ (2011)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment & http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/defamationandfirstamendment/index.htm