1. Snyder v. Phelps

2. March 2006, country. U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq while serving his country.

3. On the day of his funeral at the St. John’s Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland, some uninvited guests showed up from the Westboro Baptist Church. Members from this church held up signs reading, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”, “God Hates Fags”, and “You’re Going to Hell”.

4. Fred Phelps founded the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas in 1955. For the last 20 years Reverend Fred W Phelps Sr. and other members of Westboro Baptist Church have picketed nearly 600 funerals including military funerals claiming that God hates the United States for allowing homosexuality in America’s military.

5. The picketing that took place at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was located about 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was and the picketers complied with police instructions concerning their demonstration. The picketers displayed their signs in a peaceful manner for about 30 minutes before the funeral began. They did not enter onto church property nor did they go to the cemetery. Matthew Snyder’s father did indeed see the signs but did not know what they said until seeing them on the news that night.

6. Albert Snyder, Matthew’s father, sued. He claimed that the protests at his son’s funeral made him violently ill, aggravated his diabetes, as well as his depression He also claimed that their protests were an invasion of privacy and was an intentional infliction of emotional distress. With this, he won a large damage award of $2.1 million dollars; however, this was quickly reversed on appeal claiming they were protected by the First Amendment.

7. The First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

8. Deciding what falls under the First Amendment can become hard to do with certain cases. Understanding whether the First Amendment protects Westboro for its speech is based largely on whether or not the speech is of public or private concern. Speech concerning public issues is extremely protected by this Amendment. Being able to define whether speech is of public concern is difficult to do. The Court stated, “Speech is of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to any manner of political, social or other concern to the community or when it is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.”

9. In order for the Court to determine whether speech is of private or public concern is something the Court examines on an individual basis. In the case of Westboro, the Court decided that their signs plainly stated public matters rather than private ones. They highlighted issues with homosexuality in the military as well as the moral conduct of the United States and its citizens. Although a few of the signs were viewed as a direct message to an individual, the majority of the messages were concerning broader public issues. Because Westboro had been picketing long before the Snyder funeral, there can be no claim that it was targeting Matthew Snyder personally.

10. The Court stated, “Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. It did not disrupt Matthew Snyder’s funeral, and its choice to picket at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”

11. Therefore, although the messages might have been offensive and hurtful to many, it does not mean that the speech shared by Westboro should not be protected by the First Amendment.. Snyder also tried to sue for an “intrusion upon seclusion” claim using the “captive audience” doctrine. This doctrine prohibits picketing for example around an individual’s residence because you can’t just pick up and move from your residence therefore you are considered a captive audience. However, in the case of the Snyder funeral, they were not considered a captive audience because although they were secluded at the funeral, Westboro did not intrude and stayed well away from the funeral service. Therefore, the Court declined to expand on this claim.

12. Snyder claims he didn’t sue for the money, he was simply trying to silence the group. He says he was fighting in hopes of protecting other families from having to go through this. However, because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Westboro by an overwhelming vote of 8-1, he has not only lost the money he was to receive in damages, he has lost the bigger fight. This case has only fueled the group and they will only get louder. Members from Westboro boast that the Supreme Court ruling will strengthen their cause. They vow to quadruple their funeral protestors.

13. Maryland now has a law that restricts funeral picketing, however that law was not in place at the time of Snyder’s funeral. Amendments were put into place to protect the people; however, in such cases as this one, those laws put into place to protect us can indeed hurt us as well.

14. Reflection  The causes of the conflict, using material in our readings, lectures, and discussions, along with any outside sources you wish to include. (please cite all sources).  Include recommendations for remedy or resolution, if yours differs from what actually happened. What do you think should have been done?  What did you learn as individuals and as a group about hate speech: did your research change you in any way?  What was your group process? What was effective? Why? What did not work? What would you do differently the next time?

15. The cause of the conflict in this case is that the Westboro Baptist Church chose to use aggressive communication to spread their beliefs. By appearing at a private funeral, they went beyond normal socially acceptable boundaries. Aggressive communication is defined as “the ability to force one's will (i.e., wants, needs, or desires) on another person through the use of verbal or nonverbal acts done in a way that violates socially acceptable standards, carried out with the intention or the perceived intention of inflicting physical or psychological pain, injury, or suffering.” In this case, it did inflict psychological suffering on the family of Matthew Snyder. Week 10 E-Reserve readings Cahn and Abigail; 61-66; Aggressive Communication Behavior.

16. We feel that although it is very disheartening, that the first judge did the right thing. He awarded some funds for the punitive damages, but had to uphold the rights of free speech for the Westboro Baptist Church. We would like to see all hate speech disallowed under the right of free speech because all it does is damage relationships between individuals, groups, and countries. Unfortunately, as Adam Cohen stated in the article, “The trouble is, once courts begin making exceptions of this sort, the First Amendment quickly gets whittled away. Almost everyone has some kind of speech they regard as intolerable — they just do not agree on what that speech is.”

17. We learned that even though this type of communication goes against almost everything we believe in, we also believe in the right other people have to their own beliefs. We feel that we as a group learned that although we do not agree with the hate speech and what it represents in the people who use it, that it is a right that we, as Americans, would never want to give up. “We defend it not because these ideas are particularly worthy of being protected, but because all ideas, even the most loathsome, are.”

18. Our group process was to each choose a portion of the project to work on, and then email back and forth about the subject to work out any kinks. I feel that this worked extremely well, as we all have different schedules. Our group has seen a good deal of success together and we have been able to finish our projects in a timely fashion as well.

19. Audience question When do our ideas of right and wrong and use of aggressive communication become too much?

20. Works Cited  (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2012, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment  Cohen, A. (2010, September 29). Retrieved March 12, 2012, from TimeU.S.: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2022220,00.html  Gregory, S. (2011, March 3). Retrieved March 12, 2012, from TimeU.S.: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056613,00.html  SuperemeCourt.gov. (2010, October). Retrieved March 12, 2012, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf  Week 10 E-Reserve readings Cahnand Abigail; 61-66; Aggressive communication Behavior

21. Presented by Mindy Singleton Marie Durrant Heather Green Alyssa Huffman