Case Analysis : Snyder V. Phelps Essay

In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public

Board of County Commissioners of Brevard V. Snyder set a precedent since the Court concluded the comprehensive plan, provides for future land use through gradual and ordered growth, and it is not a literal guide. Thus, Local governments have the discretion to decide that certain land uses should be denied, even if they comply with comprehensive plan guidelines.

In 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Roe V. Wade. Jane Roe was a single mother trying to raise one child on a limited income. She was living in Dallas Texas when she became pregnant with another child. There were no medical issues that would have prevented her from carrying this child to full term. The lack of income and already having a child was her deciding factor.

In the beginning of this article, Rosenbaum relies on the appeal of emotion, pathos, to persuade his audience to agree with his claim. He tries to achieve this by telling a story of a church group picketing the funeral of a gay marine. He states, “The Supreme Court upheld the right of a church group opposed to gays serving in the military to picket the funeral of a dead marine with signs that read ‘God Hates Fags’ ” (Rosenbaum). This event caused an uproar and disrupted the peace of a marines’ funeral. Many people began to question the limits of free speech because of this. How can people use hateful speech such as

Snyder v. Phelps case is about the protest of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) supporters at the funeral of Albert Snyder’s son protested against the acceptance of homosexuality by the US (Facts and Case Summary - Snyder v. Phelps). They showed different anti-gay signs targeting many people. Albert Snyder then sued the demonstrators by saying that these signs caused him anxiety, sorrow and pain. The Court didn’t protect Albert Snyder because they say that the demonstrators were protesting against society as a whole and not against his son. They also add that the signs shown on protest were protected under the First Amendment and told Snyder that if he continues this case he will have to pay a large amount of money to the church. In this case the main problem is whether the protesters have the right to protest at funerals of soldiers against homosexuality. In this policy memo, based on the concepts of equity, freedom of speech and liberty three main alternative solutions will be considered to this problem.

I chose the Snyder vs Phelps case and this being the first time listening in on a full Supreme Court hearing, a couple of things did surprise me. The first of which was how calm all the judges were. When the judges spoke, they had an air of confidence, especially the senior judges who barley seemed to stammer. Despite all of the technical words and references to other court rulings the overall tone did not seem as formal as I had imagined. Judge Charles Beyer seemed very lighthearted, with almost every comment he made followed by some laughter. Senior Judge Antonin Scalia even made a hysterical Quaker grandma joke. Before listening to the audio, I would not have believed that this came from a Supreme Court proceeding, let alone from one of

Albert Snyder’s son, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in a Humvee accident on March 3, 2006. Phelps heard about Matthew Snyder’s funeral and decided to head to Maryland with six other followers to picket. The Westboro Baptist Church picketed Lance Corporal Snyder’s funeral with signs that displayed sayings such as: “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “Thank God for IEDs,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” Before the members of the church arrived, they contacted local authorities to let them know about their protest. They staged themselves on public land that was parallel to a street, all the while agreeing and obeying that police officer’s orders. They showed their signs for about thirty minutes before the beginning of the funeral. Members of the church also sang songs and recited verses from the Bible. The picketers never stepped foot (they were about 1,000 feet away) on the church’s property (where the funeral was held) nor did they use profanity or

The Westboro Baptist Church is located in Topeka, Kansas and made up of Pastor Fred Waldron Phelps, nine of his 13 children (the other four are estranged because they didn’t agree with their family), their children and spouses, and a small number of other families and individuals. Phelps has maintained tight control over the group. His estranged son Nathan says that Phelps abused his children

when judge asked that the protesters here had selected the funeral as a demonstration site to get publicity for their cause. Does that matter? Phelps said no because every speaker tries to get maximum exposure for his cause.

Before watching this video I did not know much about the Westboro Baptist Church protest and the counter-protest. I have only seen a little bit about this online and some people I know went to the protest, but in my opinion it does fall under the freedom of speech clause. On one hand, I do think that everyone has the right to speak their minds, but on the other hand I think that it was not justified to start these protest in the first place. I believe that everyone has their own opinions and I think everyone should just keep their opinions to them selves if it is going to start a big uproar. I understand where the counter-protesters are coming from, but I do not think it was necessary to protest just like the Westboro Baptist Church. So,

In other words, with regard to almost all things, and in cases such as Williams v. Morgan, it should be the place of the public and not the legislature to decide whether or not an act that does not directly harm another is moral or immoral; however, in the instance of hate speech and other actions that are the tools and building blocks of social prejudices, the magnitude of the potential loss to humanity justifies government interference and prohibition. Humankind has not evolved to a stage where it can be free from the fatal influences of prejudices and hate speech. Prejudice is the common denominator of all of the major conflicts and clashes that humanity has faced in the last hundred years—WWII, Jim Crow, Apartheid, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Yugoslav Wars, all have their roots in prejudice. Furthermore, as Mari Matsuda points out in Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story, in a society in which hate speech is common place, there can never be true negative liberty for all individuals, as members of the group that is being discriminated against will always feel as though they are not “left to do or be

Phelps, the United States Supreme Court decided on the tort law “intentional infliction of emotional distress through outrageous conduct” (Fisher and Harriger, 2016, p.494). Phelps used vulgar language by stating “God hates the USA/Thank God For 9/11,” “God hates Fags troops,” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.” (Fisher and Harriger, 2016, p.494). Personally, I understand the Freedom of speech is safeguarded by our first amendment of the United States constitution. I respect that, but I disagree on the First Amendment protecting the kind of speech in these court cases. There is nothing wrong with the idea of free speech but do not intend to deliver fake news or spread lies, hate crimes that will result to many consequences into the community. I am not opposing the freedom of speech at all; but I find in these court cases ways of expressing speech very offensive to me. The idea of free speech, which has helped the United States citizens for a long period to make change. There must be limitations on what you can express in certain circumstances is a way to solve problems without creating any harm. For example, the idea of silent can help we do not need to use vulgar words to prove a point.  Silent could help bring change sometimes. In addition, they should not be limited to express their anger or what is bothering them as long it is not harming somebody’s race or their religion and maintain

In 2010 during the funeral of U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder a group of protesters from Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas appeared at the cemetery, carrying anti-gay signs and shouting anti-gay slogans. The late U.S. Marine’s father, Albert Snyder, later sued the protesters for inflicting emotional distress to himself and his grieving family and won a jury award. The protest is one of many examples of hate speech, which is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as “speech expressing hatred at a particular group of people.” In some countries, like Germany, hate speech is a crime that is punishable by fines and years in prison. In the United States, however, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Due to recent

John Stuart Mill presents a liberal view for the defense of free speech in favour for the fullest liberty to debate (1978, 15). Yet, Mill’s harm principle states the government can rightfully interfere with the pastor’s freedom of expression under the condition to prevent harm to the homosexual community (pg. 9) One problem that emerges is the lack of a universal consensus on among scholarly work on what constitutes hate speech. Boyle argues hate speech, “is intended to entice hatred or violence” (Boyle Freedom 6-7). While, Mill’s “On Liberty” provides a strong liberal view that makes it difficult to argue that hate speech directly causes any violence or interference of the homosexual’s community’s liberty, which is supported by the notorious corn dealer example. The pastor’s portrayal that homosexuals are dangerous and comparable to cancer would not be considered harm, as he does not advice to inflict physical harm upon the homosexual community. In particular, psychological damage is far harder to argue in terms of legal rights compared to physical damage. Even if the homosexual community are psychologically harmed by pastor remarks, Jacobson (2000) notes Mill would be resilient to placing any sort of limits on the freedom of speech.

In addition, the Roe v. Wade decision is a direct illustration of judicial activism. Prior to the Court’s ruling, many states limited or completely prohibited abortion. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Roe’s right to privacy permitted women to receive abortions given to them by in their First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Roe v. Wade). As stated, this case is an illustration of judicial activism because the Supreme Court Justices interpreted the law loosely, creating their own law that became the Supreme Law of the Land. The Court’s decision enables states to pass their own legislation concerning abortion. As noted in Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion, “A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life (“Key excerpts from the majority opinion”). The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, states, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws” (“The Heritage Guide to The Constitution”). However, when the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to abortion as an extension of her right to privacy, they exhibited judicial activism. Justice Blackmun stated in his opinion a “The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute….We, therefore include that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion