Federal Court

Snyder v. Phelps The First Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and prohibits the making of any law " impeding the free exercise of religion," infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress.

However, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government (Farber, 2002, intro). The First Amendment has been used over and over again to test the limits of free speech or exercising opinions that may be contrary to current public views, or even offensive to some. This was the case in a 2011 Supreme Court Decision, Snyder v. Phelps (562 U.S.

Supreme Court), in which the Court found that speech on public sidewalks about a contentious or public issue is covered under the First Amendment right to free and uncontested speech, even if that speech is distasteful, or as the Court noted, "outrageous." The issue surrounded the claim of intentional emotional distress. On March 10, 2006, members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, killed in a non-combat accident in Iraq.

The WBC members had picketed other funerals, and were trying to use this forum to express their indignation about America's increasing tolerance of homosexuality and liberal views. Picketers held posters that said such things as "Fag Troops," "God Hates You," "Semper Fi Fags," and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," among others (Bates, 2011). Albert Snyder, Matthew's Father, was so distressed by this behavior that he sued Fred Phelps, Pastor of the WBC, and two of his daughters for defamation, intrusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.

The claim of defamation was dismissed because it focused on comments on the WBC website, which the courts held that the contentions were opinion meant for a limited audience. The actual facts of the case were not disputed at trial, but the WBC countered that they had complied with all local ordinances and police instructions. Although WBC sought a mistrial, in October 2007, the jury found for Snyder with a total award of $10.9 million, later reduced to $5 million by a Judge based on the resources of the WBC.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the Jury's verdict and held that the court had erred by instructing the jury to decide a question of law rather than fact. Then the Court ordered Snyder to pay court costs, the public ire and commentary became viral. A writ of certiorari was filed on March 8, 2010, and arguments began in October 2010 (Liptak, 2010).

There were three major issues for the Court to decide: 1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures applies to private parties; 2) Whether freedom of speech trumps freedom of religion and assembly, and 3) Whether an individual attending a family member's funeral constitutes a "captive audience" and therefore is entitled to privacy and protection.

The Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Phelps with Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion, stating, "What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous." Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissent, writing that "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case" (Snyder v.

Phelps). This issue brings up one of the difficulties with a democratic system. If society allows censorship of one kind, then it opens the door.