And Justice for All

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 US ___, 09-751 (U.S., 2011) slip opinion, has been decided in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church (which is really just the Westboro family). I encourage anyone reading this to actually read the decision rather than new articles about it to reach their own conclusion. You can find it by following this link, and yes, it's not exactly thrilling reading.

A little background. The Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for protests which encourage the death of soldiers because of the United State's tolerance of homosexuals. Signs they carry, as pointed out in this case, are such lovely little quips as "God hates fags", "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11", "Thank God for dead soldiers", etc. They like to show up at the funerals of soldiers killed in action, such as Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. The saying "they are beneath contempt" is not adequate to describe these morons.

The key points of the case:

1) Intentional infliction of emotional distress, which was the basis of the original district court award, is a tough case to prove and necessarily involves issues of restrictions of free speech;

2) the protesters were 1,000 yards away from the funeral and were separated by several buildings, in conformance with limitations placed upon them by police, in a public place next to a public street;

3) though Mr. Snyder saw the tops of the protest signs, he had no idea what was written on them until he saw them on a news broadcast that evening;

4) they did not yell, use obscenities or incite any violence; and

5) none of the signs mentioned the Snyders and were general in nature.

In finding that Westboro is protected from liability under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court analyzed whether the statements were matter of public or private concern. Speech regarding issues of public concern are entitled to the highest level of protection from infringement. Like it or not, the signs and protest were directed at the protestors opinion of the moral conduct of the nation, not at the Snyders.

Justice Samuel Alito writes a wonderful dissent to the case, but errs in straying into matters that aren't properly before the Supreme Court. He places emphasis on an online post referred to as "the epic" that was directed towards the Snyders personally. Unfortunately, that matter was not properly raised to be discussed by the Court. Justice Alito's focus on the intent of the protesters in seeking media attention is also inappropriate. We cannot restrict speech based upon the media's choice of whether or not to cover it. While Justice Alito gives a persuasive argument, in the end, I believe he is wrong and the Majority 8-1 opinion is correct.

Freedom of speech is essential to a free society, no matter how disgusting it may be. In an imperfect world, this was the correct decision. Even bad speech such as this serves a greater purpose. We can see just how idiotic these people are thanks to the rights they have to express their moronic views and we can choose not to associate with them or pay them attention.