Snyder V Phelps Case Study

Since its inception the Westboro Baptist Church has expressed an agenda of fanatical Baptism where they promote homophobia, anti-Semitism, and the message that God hates everyone but the WBC.

In Snyder v. Phelps, dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional

The articles "Freedom of Speech: Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City" and "Freedom of Religion: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association" both engage in conflicts pertaining to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was heard in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Johnson v. State, 755 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District holding that “Johnson’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the statute. States cannot pass laws which take away freedoms that are promised under the United States Constitution, and in passing section 42.09(a)(3), the state had deprived Johnson of his constitutional right to express his views about the government.” Johnson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1986). The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District had affirmed the decision of the Dallas County Criminal Court which found Mr. Johnson guilty of desecration of the American flag. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13,

In result to this case, the majority of the court noted that the Texas law discriminated upon the law. They feel that this act might bring up anger in other people and more flag burning. The majority of the court also agreed that Johnson had the right to use that form of symbolic speech because it is protected by the first amendment. They find this act is very offensive, but the society’s outrage alone is not justification for depressing Johnson’s freedom of speech.

In the R.A.V v. City of St. Paul case, a white teenager was arrested for burning a cross in the lawn of the only black family in the neighborhood. According to the state, this was in violation of a 1989 city ordinance making it a crime to place on public or public property a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse "anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, and gender." In this case, a higher court decided that R.A.V’s first amendments were violated because the state was punishing expression. The ordinance didn’t simply make burning a cross illegal, but instead made the expression associated with this act illegal, which the court considered a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his

Gobitis and Barnette are two very important cases whose rulings had a big significance on a specific minority and the State. In the Gobitis case the Gobitis kids were expelled from public schools in Minersville School district for refusing to salute the flag. Saluting the flag involved standing and placing your right hand over your heart as you say the pledge of allegiance. It was not done in disrespect but due to their religious belief. The Gobitis’ religion looks down upon saluting the flag or symbols like that. Saluting the flag is a daily exercise that is done by students and teachers. Whoever refuses is expelled and the parents are prosecuted also. When the kids were kicked out of all public schools they had to go to private school where their dad could barely afford it but had no choice. Later on the Barnette case reversed the ruling of the court. It focused more on the constitution and what was legal. It was unconstitutional to punish a student for exercising their freedom of religion and speech. Citizens have rights and it had to be acknowledged, not just kick students out of school for their belief. As stated in the Bill of Rights in the first amendment people have freedom to religion and speech and can freely exercise that. The Barnette case made that obvious and gave the people back their rights. The justices from each case had their own opinion on what they thought was best and what wasn’t. Some were all for giving citizens their freedom of speech

This case affects all of us today because it prevents local and federal government determine what is appropriate or over the line when we are expressing ourselves.

We felt that there is a certain amount of respect that everyone deserves and the WBC is crossing this line and stripping people of this respect. As a result, there should be laws created to limit the amount of emotional stress that this group can put onto the people they encounter. One way this can be done is by not allowing the church to protest at certain events such as the funerals of deceased military members. Although the WBC has the right and is protected by the first amendment, allowing them to express their freedom of speech, they are using this to their advantage and are exploiting others. I personally believe that the creators of this amendment had no intention for it to be used to protect people who act like the members of the WBC. I do agree that the WBC have the right to their freedom of speech and protest, however, they are in some ways, impeding and striping the rights and freedoms of the people they encounter and the young members of the church who shout and hold signs when they have yet to understand the meaning of

Barnette is a result of a spike in violence against Jehovah’s witnesses. When lives are threatened, the definition of democracy and our method to preserve it changes drastically. In his majority opinion in Barnette, Justice Jackson agrees that “symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas” (Barnette 136), but it is meaningless when forced because coercion leads to “words without belief and… gesture barren of meaning” (Barnette 137). He also highlights the flaws in the majority logic of Gobitis regarding the constitutionality of compulsory measures on grounds of national unity. Jackson states, “national unity… is not in question. The problem is… compulsion” (Barnette 138). To him, fundamental rights are not flexible, and the actions of the school board are a clear violation of the first and fourteenth amendments. That is: basic freedoms – and the factions that inevitably result from such freedom (as concluded by James Madison in The Federalist No. 10) 5 – must not be sacrificed or stifled in an attempt to preserve a democratic society; and it is the duty of the courts to stop such infringements on

Snyder V. Phelps is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of a public concern, on the public street, cannot be the basis of liability for an “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” even during circumstances when the speech is viewed or interpreted as “offensive” or “outrageous”. At the Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps and his followers believed that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly within the military. “To demonstrate their belief Phelps and his followers often picket at military funerals.” [Copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps and http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-snyder-v-phelps. Be careful not to plagiarize.

This case is one that puts me in great discomfort about my ideas on the American Justice system. On one hand I am completely against what the West bough Baptist has down and what they continue to do. They use saddening public events like the death of a decorated marine to their own public advantage. Their only form of protest is with hateful signs and words. I completely disagree with everything they do they am truly disgusted by Phelps actions and the actions of his church. In case, I completely take the side of the plaintiff because he should have the right to bury his son in peace.

The case of Morse v. Frederick took place in Juneau, Alaska in 2002. At the time, the 2002 Olympics were passing by this town and principal Deborah Morse allowed her students to go out in the street to see the relay (Barnes). One student by the name of Joseph Frederick held up a 14-foot long poster with the phrase “BONG HITS 4 JESUS” which infers the use of marijuana. He did this so he could be shown on television. His principal thought this message was not school appropriate to show so she suspended him for 10 days (Barnes). Frederick went on to sue Ms. Morse and the school as he asserted that they had broken his first amendment right (Morse).

Some of the most interesting arguments were in regards to weather Snyder was a public figure or not. The Snyder’s Lawyer claimed they were handpicked to gain the maximum amount of exposure in regards to the protests and picketing by the Phelps family and Westboro. Westboro claimed they had protection under the first amendment, speech on public issues and speech on a matter of public concern, because Snyder made his son a public figure by asking, publicly, for an end to the war. Westboro also claims they were not “up close and in their grille, or berating” insisting that it was public speech rather than harassment. Both sides were given equal opportunity to argue their case, and both were asked equally difficult questions.