Snyder vs. Phelps

What I have found to be most striking in class thus far is the disparity between final rulings on freedom of speech issues.  The verdict in the case of Snyder vs. Phelps was particularly thought provoking.   Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was only 20 years old the day he died March 3, 2006.   Parents Albert and Lee Snyder mourned the death of their young son while members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed his funeral with signs reading, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates Your Tears.”  Albert Snyder, father of the late soldier, decided to take action.  Snyder took his case to the Supreme Court suing the members of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church for $5 million dollars for “intentional infliction of emotional distress”.  Freedom of speech is one of the most essential aspects of American liberty however, use of hate speech causes Americans to more closely examine exactly what type of speech the first amendments protects and whether or not some speech violates the law. 

 Although the content of speech generally cannot be limited, the government has the ability to regulate some aspects of free speech.  The law protects the American people by limiting the volume and location of protestors.  For example, law professor William Rich of Washburn University notes, “Judges have drawn a line between picketing of a home (which may be constrained), and general neighborhood picketing on public streets and sidewalks (which remains protected by the First Amendment)”.  Issues of speech that most people view as intolerable naturally instill the desire to amend freedom of speech in order to limit hatred.  However, by making exceptions we would be allowing the government to discern what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.  This is an extremely subjective distinction, allowing the government to regulate speech could effectively endanger the collective liberty of the American people.  Allowing the government to discern what speech violates the law would cause even more issues regarding free speech than there are today.   

In the case of Snyder vs. Phelps, Snyder won.  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf  Snyder’s lawyers argued that the funeral was not a public event and that protestors were exploiting the private grief of a private person.   Lawyers also claimed that Snyder was a victim of emotional terrorism and that protestors caused him physical health problems such as depression and aggravation of diabetes.  Many freedom of speech cases do not end up with this type of verdict and I am torn as to which side I support.  My natural inclination is of course to applaud the court on their final decision however, silencing the speech of even one group deters from the open marketplace of ideas we have discussed in class.