After reading chapter 5 in our textbook, the example addressed by the authors that I found the most interesting was the SCOTUS ruling regarding Snyder v. Phelps. This decision, determined by an 8-1 vote in 2011, was a landmark case that was met with widespread controversy, but its peak point of discussion came before I started following politics and current events closely (Pg. 132). Because of this, the first time I familiarized myself with the details of this case was when I read this chapter, and my initial reading of the decision easily rubbed me the wrong way. I consider myself a strong supporter of free speech, but when reading the textbook I couldn't understand how nearly all of the Supreme Court reconciled the Westboro Baptist Church's right to protest with the privacy of the Snyder family's funeral. I decided to read Justice Alito's dissent to see what arguments he brought forth in favor of the Snyder family as well as Justice Roberts's majority opinion to see why the court ultimately ruled in favor of Phelps.
Justice Alito's dissent begins with the line, "our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case." Alito's strong condemnation of the WBC's statements here and throughout his entire dissent resonated with me strongly. I would argue most Americans find the WBC's statements and platitudes to be disgusting, hateful, and a detriment to intelligent public discourse regarding important issues like homosexuality and religion. No matter how strongly people personally condemn organizations like these, knowing they won't face any legal ramifications for the beliefs they espouse can be a bitter pill to swallow for many. In the case of Albert Snyder, it seems astonishingly unjust that a father who recently lost his son could be awarded $5 million by a district court - only to walk away with virtually nothing after being dragged through the legal system for nearly five years. Alito continues: "on the morning of Matthew Snyder’s funeral, respondents could have chosen to stage their protest at countless locations. They could have picketed the United States Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Pentagon, or any of the more than 5,600 military recruiting stations in this country... but of course, a small group picketing at any of these locations would have probably gone unnoticed." Upon my initial reading, the part of this case most difficult to grasp for me was the fact that the WBC was able to stage their protest at a private event that was clearly meant for family members and close friends. As Alito asserts later on in his dissent, this is obviously intentional on the part of the WBC; these protests serve as a "publicity-seeking strategy" in hopes of obtaining a platform to spread hate.
On an emotional level, I empathized with Alito's dissent a great deal. However, reading Justice Roberts's majority opinion regarding this case provided me with more context in relation to the exact circumstances of the funeral protest and made me aware of the danger that has the potential to arise when the Court attempts to define "outrageous speech." As I wrote before, my main problem with this case had to do with the privacy concerns surrounding the Snyder family at this event. While I envisioned the protesters being a proximate, boisterous group, Roberts's piece clarified the dynamic between the two groups: "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself." He also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the Snyder family was coerced into listening to WBC's chanting; in other words, they were not a captive audience. I think Roberts's opinion piece effectively argued the Court's position on how this protest was justified in terms of privacy, but I believe the strongest argument made in favor of protecting the first amendment rights of inflammatory groups like the WBC came from the ACLU after they made the decision to file an amicus brief on behalf of Phelps. On their website, Chris Hampton, a member of the ACLU LGBT project, writes, "...government censorship has long been used to silence unpopular minorities, including LGBT people. The ACLU's first gay rights case was in 1936, when we defended the play The Children's Hour after it was banned in Boston because of its 'lesbian content'... Who can doubt that had it been up the government in the 1950's — or to many state governments today — we wouldn't be able to come out at all."
In a society like the United States, it's crucial that those who hold institutional power maintain and enforce limits on its scope to reduce its potential to harm disenfranchised and marginalized groups.
Sources:
Hampton, Chris. “Why Fred Phelps's Free Speech Rights Should Matter to Us All.” American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, 17 Feb. 2012, www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/why-fred-phelpss-free-speech-rights-should-matter-us-all#comments-top.
Supreme Court of the United States. Snyder v. Phelps. 2 Mar. 2011, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZO.html.
Justice Alito's dissent begins with the line, "our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case." Alito's strong condemnation of the WBC's statements here and throughout his entire dissent resonated with me strongly. I would argue most Americans find the WBC's statements and platitudes to be disgusting, hateful, and a detriment to intelligent public discourse regarding important issues like homosexuality and religion. No matter how strongly people personally condemn organizations like these, knowing they won't face any legal ramifications for the beliefs they espouse can be a bitter pill to swallow for many. In the case of Albert Snyder, it seems astonishingly unjust that a father who recently lost his son could be awarded $5 million by a district court - only to walk away with virtually nothing after being dragged through the legal system for nearly five years. Alito continues: "on the morning of Matthew Snyder’s funeral, respondents could have chosen to stage their protest at countless locations. They could have picketed the United States Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Pentagon, or any of the more than 5,600 military recruiting stations in this country... but of course, a small group picketing at any of these locations would have probably gone unnoticed." Upon my initial reading, the part of this case most difficult to grasp for me was the fact that the WBC was able to stage their protest at a private event that was clearly meant for family members and close friends. As Alito asserts later on in his dissent, this is obviously intentional on the part of the WBC; these protests serve as a "publicity-seeking strategy" in hopes of obtaining a platform to spread hate.
On an emotional level, I empathized with Alito's dissent a great deal. However, reading Justice Roberts's majority opinion regarding this case provided me with more context in relation to the exact circumstances of the funeral protest and made me aware of the danger that has the potential to arise when the Court attempts to define "outrageous speech." As I wrote before, my main problem with this case had to do with the privacy concerns surrounding the Snyder family at this event. While I envisioned the protesters being a proximate, boisterous group, Roberts's piece clarified the dynamic between the two groups: "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself." He also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the Snyder family was coerced into listening to WBC's chanting; in other words, they were not a captive audience. I think Roberts's opinion piece effectively argued the Court's position on how this protest was justified in terms of privacy, but I believe the strongest argument made in favor of protecting the first amendment rights of inflammatory groups like the WBC came from the ACLU after they made the decision to file an amicus brief on behalf of Phelps. On their website, Chris Hampton, a member of the ACLU LGBT project, writes, "...government censorship has long been used to silence unpopular minorities, including LGBT people. The ACLU's first gay rights case was in 1936, when we defended the play The Children's Hour after it was banned in Boston because of its 'lesbian content'... Who can doubt that had it been up the government in the 1950's — or to many state governments today — we wouldn't be able to come out at all."
In a society like the United States, it's crucial that those who hold institutional power maintain and enforce limits on its scope to reduce its potential to harm disenfranchised and marginalized groups.
Sources:
Hampton, Chris. “Why Fred Phelps's Free Speech Rights Should Matter to Us All.” American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, 17 Feb. 2012, www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/why-fred-phelpss-free-speech-rights-should-matter-us-all#comments-top.
Supreme Court of the United States. Snyder v. Phelps. 2 Mar. 2011, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZO.html.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed., Strata
Publishing, Inc., 2017.
Comments
Post a Comment