SCOTUS Case: Protesting and Free Speech

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

The case in a nutshell....

Snyder sued Phelps for invading his privacy and for an intentional infliction of emotional distress. A Maryland jury rejected Phelps' defense based on free speech and awarded Snyder $10.9 million in damages. But a judge reduced the amount to $5 million. In September, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out verdict, citing the First Amendment.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/supreme-court-puts-highemotion-funeral-protest-case-on-docket.html

As framed by lawyers for Snyder, the issues to be resolved by the high court will be whether the 1988 case of Hustler v. Falwell, which limited the use of the "emotional distress" tort, applies in cases like Snyder's, and whether freedom of speech trumps freedom of religion and peaceful assembly.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/supreme-court-puts-highemotion-funeral-protest-case-on-docket.html

Some of the questions we might want to address:

Was the court right in awarding Snyder $10.9 Million??

Should the award have been lowered or reversed altogether??

What boundaries should society place on protesting in public places that aren't normally sites of a protest (i.e. a cemetary or funeral home)??

If the free speech rights of Phelps' group should not be protected, why??

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Some background on this case.....

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide the outer limits of free-speech protection for protests and to rule on whether a dead soldier's family can sue fringe religious protesters who picketed near their son's funeral carrying signs that read: "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Like the famous case of the American Nazis who marched in Skokie, Ill., the new case of anti-gay picketing at military funerals tests whether the most hateful protests must be tolerated under the First Amendment, even if they inflict emotional harm. In this instance, the victims were the family of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in combat in Iraq on March 3, 2006.

When his family announced his funeral would be held in Westminster, Md., a Kansas preacher decided to travel there with a few followers to protest. In recent years, Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, has been protesting at military funerals around the nation because he believes the United States is too tolerant of homosexuality. Though kept distant from St. Johns Catholic Church and the cemetery, Phelps and his followers carried signs that read "God Hates the USA," "Fag troops" and "Pope in hell."

There was no suggestion that Snyder was gay or that the protests even involved him directly. But after returning to Kansas, Phelps said on his Web site that Albert Snyder, the soldier's father, had "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil."

Snyder sued Phelps for invading his privacy and for an intentional infliction of emotional distress. A Maryland jury rejected Phelps' defense based on free speech and awarded Snyder $10.9 million in damages. But a judge reduced the amount to $5 million. In September, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out verdict, citing the First Amendment. The protest signs were "distasteful and repugnant," but their words were wild and hyperbolic, the judges said. They did not "assert actual facts about either Snyder or his son," the court said.

The father appealed to the Supreme Court, noting that a family at a funeral is a "captive audience" and cannot simply turn away from a hateful protest. "Snyder had one (and only one) opportunity to bury his son and that occasion has been tarnished forever," his lawyer said. "Matthew deserved better. A civilized society deserved better."

The high court said it had voted to hear the case of Snyder v. Phelps in the fall and to consider reinstating the jury verdict.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_14637610
------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is getting involved in the legal fight over the anti-gay protesters who show up at military funerals with inflammatory messages like "Thank God for dead soldiers."

The court agreed Monday to consider whether the protesters' message, no matter how provocative and upsetting, is protected by the First Amendment. Members of a Kansas-based church have picketed military funerals to spread their belief that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

The justices will hear an appeal from the father of a Marine killed in Iraq to reinstate a $5 million verdict against the protesters, after they picketed outside his son's funeral in Maryland.

A jury in Baltimore awarded Albert Snyder damages for emotional distress and invasion of privacy, but a federal appeals court threw out the verdict. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the signs contained "imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric" protected by the First Amendment.

The funeral for Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Md., was among many that have been picketed by members of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Westboro pastor Fred Phelps and other members have used the funeral protests to spread their belief that U.S. deaths in the Iraq war are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. One of the signs at Snyder's funeral combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto with a slur against gay men.

Other signs carred by members of the Topeka, Kan.-based church said, "America is Doomed," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "Priests Rape Boys" and "Thank God for IEDs," a reference to the roadside bombs that have killed many U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The case will be argued in the fall.

The case is Snyder v. Phelps, 09-751.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/86869162.html

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Supreme Court Puts High-Emotion Funeral Protest Case on Docket

Few recent confrontations have stirred as much emotion and debate as the spate of funeral protests conducted at funerals for U.S. soldiers killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, the Supreme Court agreed to take up one of the cases stemming from those protests, a hot-button First Amendment dispute that will be argued in the fall.
Members of the Topeka, Kan., Westboro Baptist Church, seeking to spread the word that God is punishing America for its acceptance of homosexuality, have shown up at funerals with anti-gay and anti-war protest signs carrying messages such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "God Hates You." The protests have triggered lawsuits and legislation nationwide, posing a dilemma for those seeking to stifle the protests without suppressing First Amendment rights.
"However abhorrent may have been the message ... the scope of constitutional freedom or expression may not turn on the acceptability of that message," wrote J. Joshua Wheeler of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression in a brief filed at an earlier stage of the case now before the Court, Snyder v. Phelps.
In the case, Kansas church members led by Fred Phelps traveled to the Westminster, Md., funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq in 2006. they displayed their usual signs and caused disruption and emotional pain for Snyder's family, according to the family's brief. "Phelps' activities added insult and injury during a time of grief and mourning," wrote Sean Summers of the York, Pa., firm Barley Snyder in the petition to the high court, filed on behalf of Snyder's surviving father, Albert. "Matthew deserved better. A civilized society deserved better." A jury awarded the Snyder family $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, an amount later reduced to $5 million. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed, on First Amendment grounds.
Two judges of the 4thCircuit panel, Robert King and Allson Duncan, found that, despite the "distasteful and repugnant nature of the protests, the speech was constitutionally protected. the third judge, Dennis Shedd, agreed the judgment against Phelps should be reversed, but on grounds other than the First Amendment.
Phelps' brief in opposition to granting Supreme Court review argued that the protesters' speech was about public matters and should be protected. "Given the magnitude and gravity of the problems facing this once great nation," said Topeka lawyer Margie Phelps, "nothing could be more important at this hour than the question of how God is dealing with this nation, especially on the battlefield."
As framed by lawyers for Snyder, the issues to be resolved by the high court will be whether the 1988 case of Hustler v. Falwell, which limited the use of the "emotional distress" tort, applies in cases like Snyder's, and whether freedom of speech trumps freedom of religion and peaceful assembly.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/supreme-court-puts-highemotion-funeral-protest-case-on-docket.html

[KinjaKahn]

Wackos have no right to be wacko now?

[Vegas]

Wackos have no right to be wacko now?

They certainly do. But let's see if they end up with restrictions on the locations they're allowed to be wackos.

[KinjaKahn]

I am not in favor of "free speech zones", period.

[Vegas]

I am not in favor of "free speech zones", period.

I was referring more to take their act back to their backwards "church" and leave the funerals alone.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Although i have a feeling this will be decided on the grounds of free speech and that Phelps' group will have almost any right to protest anywhere it sees fit, I'm of the mind that any speech that i don't approve of should be banned. :D


But seriously, i disagreed with the flag burning issue that Scalia also had a major hand in, but can see- from an intellectual POV- why it needed to be decided that way- and why we shouldn't be putting limits on speech just because it offended somebody in this case.

If there had been a complaint about a public disturbance and this was to decide a citation that was handed out, that would be one thing. But this case is deciding whether a civil suit should have been allowed. I don't think the original judge should have awarded $10.9 million to the plantiff.

I'm taking into consideration also that the signs and words had nothing to do with Phelps' son directly.

[domenick2x]

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell backup info.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278


Clearly the wackos have a free-speech right to say and do what they did. If they were on the steps of a courthouse somewhere, there's no second thought about the legitimacy of their actions.

My difficulty comes in when you've got the funeral. Do the attendees of a funeral have some right to NOT hear political speech at an event like a funeral? I'd argue yes. However, I don't think that's sufficent grounds for the lawsuit... like Ghost said, if there was a citation on 'public disturbance', I think that would be okay.

I find this one particularly hard because I find the actions so distasteful.

[pnkpanther]

I was referring more to take their act back to their backwards "church" and leave the funerals alone.

large part of his "church" are his family members

http://www.startribune.com/politics/87022592.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ

[pnkpanther]

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell backup info.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278


Clearly the wackos have a free-speech right to say and do what they did. If they were on the steps of a courthouse somewhere, there's no second thought about the legitimacy of their actions.

My difficulty comes in when you've got the funeral. Do the attendees of a funeral have some right to NOT hear political speech at an event like a funeral? I'd argue yes. However, I don't think that's sufficent grounds for the lawsuit... like Ghost said, if there was a citation on 'public disturbance', I think that would be okay.

I find this one particularly hard because I find the actions so distasteful.


Hustler is in news trying to obtain photos of a crime scene where a girl who was decapitated was found.

[hannitykillspuppies]

based on fire millen's personal account, why are these people afforded police details?

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

based on fire millen's personal account, why are these people afforded police details?

Probably because the police know that the shit will seriously hit the fan unless they are there.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Probably because the police know that the shit will seriously hit the fan unless they are there.

that's not a good reason.

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

My learned legal prediction: the loonies will win here.

[becherr]

Job creation time....you hire the Michigan Militia to provide security for your dead sons funeral.

[domenick2x]

They almost assuredly will - however, a number of states have since enacted legislation making demonstrations at funerals a crime.

While that probably goes against the spirit of any ruling here, I also don't see the SCOTUS making a ruling broad enough to stop those laws. So if these wackos were to continue, they'd be fighting legal battles for years.

Which ought to take up enough of their time to minimize the effects on military families.

[Vegas]

This reminds me of the battles over klan rallies in Skokie, IL years ago. I'm talking about in the early 80s. The klan wanted to have a rally through the town, which is heavily Jewish. There was quite an uproar and lots of threats made. The klan was denied a permit and they took it to court. The klan eventually won some court case and they sort of planned their rally, but they cancelled because of threats of violence. They would have been badly outnumbered and they chickened out.

I think they've made other attempts at doing the same thing in the same area over the years, but I haven't heard so much about it since I don't live in that general part of the world.

There are definitely differences and simlilarities between a planned klan rally through a Jewish area and a bunch of loons showing up at a funeral. I think it's a lot easier for a planned response to a rally.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

BALTIMORE – The father of a Marine killed in Iraq and whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters was ordered to pay the protesters' appeal costs, his lawyers said Monday.

On Friday, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, which conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in 2006.

The two-page decision supplied by attorneys for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., offered no details on how the court came to its decision.

Attorneys also said Snyder is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's lawyers.

The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_funeral_protests;_ylt=At6GNYcKpFIofosCv7mDNWKs0 NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNudTVoYWI4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzI5L 3VzX2Z1bmVyYWxfcHJvdGVzdHMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXI EY3BvcwM0BHBvcwMxBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZ GxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDbWFyaW5lc2RhZG9y

[LionFanFormerlyInLA]

I'm just curious if the ACLU is supporting one side or the other on this....

I don't recall seeing anything along those lines.

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

Every time I see SCOTUS my mind initially reads it for a split second as SCROTUM.

[Jiddy78]

This reminds me of the battles over klan rallies in Skokie, IL years ago. I'm talking about in the early 80s. The klan wanted to have a rally through the town, which is heavily Jewish. There was quite an uproar and lots of threats made. The klan was denied a permit and they took it to court. The klan eventually won some court case and they sort of planned their rally, but they cancelled because of threats of violence. They would have been badly outnumbered and they chickened out.

I think they've made other attempts at doing the same thing in the same area over the years, but I haven't heard so much about it since I don't live in that general part of the world.

There are definitely differences and simlilarities between a planned klan rally through a Jewish area and a bunch of loons showing up at a funeral. I think it's a lot easier for a planned response to a rally.

Interesting...Never heard that before...I wonder if that is where they got the idea for that scene in the Blues Brothers...

[Vegas]

Interesting...Never heard that before...I wonder if that is where they got the idea for that scene in the Blues Brothers...

This was before the Blues Brothers movie came out. It's more likely the other way around where they got the movie idea from real life events.

[Jiddy78]

This was before the Blues Brothers movie came out. It's more likely the other way around where they got the movie idea from real life events.

That's what I meant...I wonder if the Blues Brothers got it from that... ;)

[Vegas]

That's what I meant...I wonder if the Blues Brothers got it from that... ;)

A part of that movie was shot in Milwaukee. It was kind of funny. The whole movie was in Chicago, but the part where they drove off the end of the freeway was in downtown Milwaukee. There was a stretch of freeway that just ended. It sat there like that for years. They only good that came of it was the movie scene. They eventually tore it down, but it just sat there for I don't even remember how many years.

[Jiddy78]

A part of that movie was shot in Milwaukee. It was kind of funny. The whole movie was in Chicago, but the part where they drove off the end of the freeway was in downtown Milwaukee. There was a stretch of freeway that just ended. It sat there like that for years. They only good that came of it was the movie scene. They eventually tore it down, but it just sat there for I don't even remember how many years.

Whenever we pass the old bridge in the Florida Keys my wife comments on the True Lies scene/remnants of the explosion...Still there...

[Roy Munson]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't deal with my issues with these people through the courts.

[Matt]

The problem with fuzzy documents is that there are ways to get into the fuzzy parts and cause havoc. I honestly think the first Amendment is being interpreted WAY to broadly.

Here's the first Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of course, the other parts of the constitution that apply to displacement of state law by Federal Law where they overlap.

I don't see where a dispute between individuals is settled by a law that limits the power of Congress. I am certainly no Legal Scholar, but there are standards of reasonable conduct that we are all held to, and deviating from those standards should leave us liable to punishment. I don't see where this runs afoul of that well established standard.

I also don't think the Hustler case applies because that protected the right to parody (IIRC) and there is no parody here.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

In an opinion that may have been written by Heidi Montag, a federal court of appeals recently threw out a jury verdict in favor of a father, Albert Snyder, who had sued protesters at his son Matthew's funeral for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Solely because Matthew was a Marine, a Kansas-based cult, consisting mostly of members of a single family, traveled to Maryland in order to stand outside Matthew's funeral with placards saying things like, "God Loves Dead Soldiers," "God Hates You," "You're Going to Hell," "Semper Fi Fags," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Thank God for IEDs" and "God Hates Fags."

But wait, it gets funnier.

The cult's leader/father is Fred Phelps, who calls America a "sodomite nation of flag-worshipping idolaters." Since you won't read it anyplace else, Phelps has run for public office five times -- as a Democrat.

The Fred Phelps cult members travel around the country and hold vile signs outside military funerals because they believe that the reason American soldiers die in wars is that God hates the U.S.A. because it tolerates homosexuals.

I'll leave it to others to speculate as to why the very thought of male homosexuality gets Fred Phelps into such a lather.

Snyder has appealed his case to the Supreme Court, and now the court will have to decide whether the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) can ever exist in a country with a First Amendment.

Unlike many legal concepts, the tort of IIED is not an obscure legal doctrine written in pig Latin. It means what it says: speech or conduct specifically intended to inflict emotional distress. The usual description of the tort of IIED is that a reasonable man viewing the conduct would react by saying, "That's outrageous!"

The Second Restatement of Torts (1965) defines IIED as conduct "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

As a respected New York judge, Judith Kaye, described it, "The tort is as limitless as the human capacity for cruelty." Inasmuch as IIED claims are made based on all manner of insults, rudeness, name-calling and petty affronts, the claim is often alleged, but rarely satisfied.

But if a group of lunatics standing outside the funeral of a fallen American serviceman with hateful signs about the deceased does not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, then there is no such tort recognizable in America anymore.

The protesters weren't publishing their views in a magazine, announcing them on a "Morning Zoo" radio program, proclaiming them on some fringe outlet like "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" -– or even standing on a random street corner. Their protest was held outside a funeral for the specific purpose of causing pain to the deceased's loved ones.

But the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals noticed that the cult's malicious signs contained words, and that words are "speech" ... which is protected by the First Amendment! (Or was it the Seventh?) Anyway, that was basically the end of the court's analysis.

True, speech will often be involved in inflicting emotional distress on someone, say, for example, standing outside a funeral with signs that say "God Hates You!"

Similarly, words are used in committing treason ("The Americans are over here!"), robbery ("Your money or your life!") and sexual harassment ("Have sex with me or you're fired."). Copyright law prohibits speech that uses someone else's words, and insider trading and trade-secrets laws prohibit the use of words revealing insider information or trade secrets.

The fact that "speech" was involved in the Fred Phelps cult's assault on Matthew Snyder's funeral is a mundane and irrelevant fact. The question is: Did that speech constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress? Hey, look! That reasonable man over there is nodding his head "yes." If so, the First Amendment is as irrelevant as it is to a copyright law violation.

The Supreme Court has upheld shockingly restrictive bans on speech outside of abortion clinics: content-based restrictions on the speech of pro-lifers singing, "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world."

Is abortion more sacrosanct than a son's funeral? Is singing "Jesus loves the little children" deserving of less First Amendment protection than placards saying, "God Loves Dead Soldiers"? Hey, reasonable man over there -- got a minute?

Even the Fred Phelps cult's "epic" posted online and accusing the Snyders of raising their son badly, which would seem to have the strongest claim to First Amendment protection, would not be protected in other contexts. Last week in Massachusetts, nine teenagers were criminally charged with cyberbullying, based in part on malicious postings about the victim on their Facebook pages.

Thanks to idiot lawyers, who think it makes them sound smart to say "Black is white" and "Up is down," one of the biggest problems in society today is the refusal to draw lines. Here's a nice bright line: Holding malevolent signs outside the funeral of an American serviceman who died defending his country constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=363

[domenick2x]

I'm very strongly anti-Phelps, but I read something on this case that I don't have an easy link at hand - that he had contacted the local police prior to the funeral, he stayed the required 1000 feet from the funeral, and that his protest could not be seen/heard from the church itself.

The plaintiff here is suing because he saw news coverage on Phelps protest after the funeral was over.

[Matt]

I'm very strongly anti-Phelps, but I read something on this case that I don't have an easy link at hand - that he had contacted the local police prior to the funeral, he stayed the required 1000 feet from the funeral, and that his protest could not be seen/heard from the church itself.

The plaintiff here is suing because he saw news coverage on Phelps protest after the funeral was over.

So he should've sued the tv station.

[LionFanFormerlyInLA]

I'm very strongly anti-Phelps, but I read something on this case that I don't have an easy link at hand - that he had contacted the local police prior to the funeral, he stayed the required 1000 feet from the funeral, and that his protest could not be seen/heard from the church itself.

The plaintiff here is suing because he saw news coverage on Phelps protest after the funeral was over.

A link to that would be helpful. I would think that would be a rather major point.

[domenick2x]

A link to that would be helpful. I would think that would be a rather major point.
See question #3.

http://www.ydr.com/ci_14667129?source=most_viewed