Snyder v. Phelps Decided

[Moss]

In an 8-1 decision (Alito dissenting), the Supreme Court has ruled that Westboro Baptist Church is protected against tort liability for its picketing at military funerals.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41868004/ns/politics-more_politics/

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

The full opinion of the case can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Edit: Now that I've had more of a chance to glance at the opinion, here's the concluding paragraph of the Court's Opinion:

Our holding today is narrow. We are required in First Amendment cases to carefully review the record, and the reach of our opinion here is limited by the particular facts before us. As we have noted, “the sensitivity and significance of the interests presented in clashes between First Amendment and [state law] rights counsel relying on limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case.” Florida Star v.B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524, 533 (1989).

Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.

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 hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Do you agree with the decision or disagree?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Interesting that Sam Alito dissented. I would be curious as to why.

I agree with the court's decision, of course. Its protected speech.

 

[Scratch]

Interesting that Sam Alito dissented. I would be curious as to why.

I agree with the court's decision, of course. Its protected speech.

Probably because Fred Phelps hasn't formed a corporation yet.

 

[Moss]

Interesting that Sam Alito dissented. I would be curious as to why.

I agree with the court's decision, of course. Its protected speech.

Just quoting from the opening of Alito's dissent:

Our profound national commitment to free and opendebate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.
Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such anincalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprivedhim of that elementary right. They first issued a pressrelease and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing,and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury. The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.

 

[warpus]

I agree with this Alito fellow

 

[classical_hero]

So do I. This is malice not free speech.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is unfortunate that there isn't some sort of automatic impeachment mechanism that kicks in for Supremes when they dissent 8-1 on such obvious decisions.

Supreme Court Votes 8-1 AGAINST Illegal Stripsearch of teen. Guess who was the ‘ 1′?


Supreme Court strikes down animal cruelty law


Supreme Court rejects petition secrecy of anti-gay ballot initiative

 

[MobBoss]

It is unfortunate that there isn't some sort of automatic impeachment mechanism that kicks in for Supremes when they dissent 8-1 on such obvious decisions.

Automatic impeachment? You would support something that would gag our justices if they dont agree with the other 8? You would prefer decisions of 9-0 or 7-2 instead?

That simply makes no sense at all.

While I understand why the court voted the way they did, there has to be a line in the sand somewhere that divides free speech from hate speech, and such liability does incur. If this case doesnt that line with its awful and hurtful rhetoric during a time of a families grief, then what is?

 

[Abaddon]

It is unfortunate that there isn't some sort of automatic impeachment mechanism that kicks in for Supremes when they dissent 8-1 on such obvious decisions.

Yea, like that would make sense!

Follow the majority or you will be impeached! Why even bother asking more than one Supreme if you are going to enforce such nonsense?

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's not a matter of "following the majority". In many cases such as these, it is a matter of being so out-of-step with the Constitution and the tenets which this country was founded that whoever appointed them in the first place was obviously a reactionary idiot.

 

[Abaddon]

So essentially unless they agree with your viewpoint, they should be removed from office?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Yeah, some of the decisions are dumb, but I dont think its deserving of an impeachment.

 

[civ_king]

It is unfortunate that there isn't some sort of automatic impeachment mechanism that kicks in for Supremes when they dissent 8-1 on such obvious decisions.

Supreme Court Votes 8-1 AGAINST Illegal Stripsearch of teen. Guess who was the ‘ 1′?


Supreme Court strikes down animal cruelty law


Supreme Court rejects petition secrecy of anti-gay ballot

[CODE]

[/CODE]initiative

Best idea everer, next we should kick homosexuals out of society for not being the majority

Seriously, bad idea. I support Alito's decision.

 

[warpus]

While I understand why the court voted the way they did, there has to be a line in the sand somewhere that divides free speech from hate speech, and such liability does incur. If this case doesnt that line with its awful and hurtful rhetoric during a time of a families grief, then what is?

How about a "You can't be an obnoxious douchebag at funerals" law?

 

[El_Machinae]

I think that the court is obviously limited by the First Amendment in this instance. If there is a line being crossed, then I guess the amendment needs to be altered.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So essentially unless they agree with your viewpoint, they should be removed from office?

No, they are disagreeing with 8 other Supremes on what should be quite obvious issues. Do you deny that Reagan and Bush are idiots who deliberately appointed reactionaries, one of whom is clearly not even qualified?

 

[MobBoss]

Yea, like that would make sense!

Follow the majority or you will be impeached! Why even bother asking more than one Supreme if you are going to enforce such nonsense?

I got an even better idea....if you are in a minority at all, be impeached. That way every decision is either 9-0 or 0-9. All praise the hypno-toad!!

No, they are disagreeing with 8 other Supremes on what should be quite obvious issues. Do you deny that Reagan and Bush are idiots who deliberately appointed reactionaries, one of whom is clearly not even qualified?

Couple of Reagan appointees:

Sandra Day O'Connor
Anthony Kennedy.

Reactionaries?

Okey.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So that means the others clearly weren't?

If Obama tried to appoint a Supreme so "leftist" as some of Reagan's and GWB's appointments were so far to the right, the reactionaries would never stop whining about it. They would again be claiming the "liberal courts" were ruining this country when the opposite is actually much more the case.

Sometimes there is very good reason for being the lone dissenter. I don't see that at all in any of the cases I provided above. I really think there should be a better mechanism to remove the ones who clearly do not belong there based on their own voting records. I think it is clear we cannot trust current presidents to properly vet them, at least that is the case with two recent Republicans.

 

[BuckyRea]

Thanks for posting Alito's opinion. He's just about dead wrong on this.

Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.

I supposed someone had to say it. But seriously, the court has at least a couple of precedents upholding the idea that the right to free speech includes the right to speak your mind in the manner which the speaker finds most appropriate for his or her message.

Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace.

All too true. He deserved to bury his son in a respectful manner. But the burial of the son is also a state occasion. It's disgusting what these protesters do at these funerals--absolutely disgusting. But it's also free speech. It's what Matthew Snyder signed up to defend with his life.

But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right.

A judge should be able to distinguish these things. Free speech is a civic right. The principle of "elementary right" doesn't exist in American jurisprudence. Alito's instincts here are entirely decent, but entirely out of step with the dictates of the law. It's heartbreaking, but these activist judges shouldn't be allowed to legislate from the bench.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

It just goes to show that morality and legality are sometimes mutually exclusive.