Defamation

Three weeks ago an event happened here at the University of Minnesota which directly correlates to defamation and the article that we read on Snyder v Phelps. In the case of Snyder v Phelps The Westboro Baptist Church led by Fred Phelps, picketed and protested a soldiers funeral with vulgar and verbally aggressive signs in Maryland. The father of the fallen soldier brought Phelps and his supporters to court and won 10 million dollars for defamation. However, that decision was overturned and the overturn was upheld by the Supreme Court with only Justice Samuel Alito dissenting (Smith). The author of the article Craig R. Smith claims "I argue that context creates meaning and that a close reading in context of the words of the protestors at the cemetery constituted a personal attack, which should not have been afforded First Amendment protection." I am in full agreement with Smith after I was a witness to the aforementioned incident.

 I am a fraternity member here and on September 7th my chapter was having a recruitment event. As our event was wrapping up a group of individuals in protest of sexual assault and fraternities walked down University Avenue with a sign saying "Kill Rapists"; the demonstrators wore masks, chanted "fuck frats", vandalized the sidewalks in front of our house and threatened us as we were simply standing on our property. The reason why the decision of the Supreme Court was so influential in this case is that this group managed to avoid any ramifications for their actions because it was seen as a peaceful protest of sexual assault. However, the context of their message was much different than the perceived message. In a follow up video posted on Unicorn Riot an organizer of the event has a voice over. In it she can be quoted saying "We're trying to tell them (fraternities) to get the fuck out and they're not wanted here." and "This is us taking justice into our own hands, and attempting to scare some frat boys." If you look at the context of their message it's clear that their issue isn't with sexual assault it is with fraternities. This is in contrast to protests like Break the Silence who peacefully marched in a show of solidarity with the survivors of sexual assault.

Besides the obvious illegal activity such as vandalism, none of the speech they used during or after the protest was within the rights of the First Amendment when viewed in context. However, while the protest was eventually dispersed by the police, no arrests were made and the only article that you can find about the event is posted from Conflict MN which from my understanding is the blog of the organizers of the protest and on Unicorn Riot a volunteer based online news source that in their "About Us" section claim to "give a voice to those who might otherwise go unheard." This is significant because we see the ramifications that the ruling in Snyder v Phelps produced. There was no official media coverage, no arrests and none of the organizers of the event will face consequences for their actions. As Smith states "the decision has provided a blueprint for how to circumvent libel, slander, and emotional distress torts using the First Amendment and the broad interpretation of public speech that the Court provided as a guide. (Justice) Roberts rewards protestors for being sensational, attracting the press, and masking their defamation as generic. Such theatrical and cynical speech when read in context is not public but private, and therefore subject to tort law." (Smith 7) This only goes to show how complex the First Amendment can be and it all relies on who is determining what you're allowed to say.

Sources:

https://www.unicornriot.ninja/about-unicorn-riot/

https://conflictmn.blackblogs.org/

https://vimeo.com/233246778

Smith, Craig R. “Snyder v. Phelps:The Problem of Context.” Free Speech Yearbook, vol. 46, no. 1, 2012, pp. 3–9., doi:10.1080/08997225.2012.10556378.