Assignment One: Snyder V. Phelps “At what point do we take personal attacks, and permit those, as opposed to -- I fully accept you’re entitled, in some circumstances, to speak about any political issue you want. But where is the line between doing that, and creating hardship for an individual?” –Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In the case of Snyder V. Phelps, Two very passionate sides debated just that. The Snyder family accused Phelps, or Westboro, of the tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional
In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly
Name and Citation: Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011) Facts: Fred Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church which is considered to be extremist. Phelps and his followers believe that God punishes those who are tolerant of homosexuality. Since, the United States has a high tolerance of homosexuality, they believe that the United States is damned. The military also has recently become more accepting of homosexuals in their ranks, thus the Westboro Baptist Church pickets many military
taken against them because they have been ruled to be protected by the 1st Amendment. Westboro Baptist Church Background Founded in 1931 in Topeka, KS The church was taken over by Fred Phelps in the 1950s after he was hired as an associate pastor The approximately 75 current members are mostly from the Phelps family, including children as young as five who are made to participate in the protests History of Protests: Anti-Gay Protests (Some examples) Protests against homosexuals or any pro-LGBT:
stronger. However, this tactic has caused much consternation from both the public and the government. In the interest of the public, state legislatures have enacted laws against the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. The landmark case of Snyder v. Phelps would have been the deciding factor against the group, but the Supreme Court held in favor of the group because their actions were protected by the First Amendment. This then would present the notion that the First Amendment trumped public interest
the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption”(Liptak 2006). To Justice Alito, the Constitution should be look at in terms of the time and era when it was written. In the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry indicates that Justice Samuel Alito dissented this case. He believes that proposition 8 should remain and this kind of case should go through the legislative process instead. In his dissent he stated, “In the end, what the Court fails to grasp
right to make or distribute obscene materials, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), or to provoke actions that would harm others, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Freedom of Speech includes but is not limited to the right “not to speak,” specifically, the right not to salute the flag, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); the right of students to wear black armbands to school to protest war, Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969); and the right to
there are in some cases where a certain kind of speech is unprotected if it involves “ fighting words “ or as defined by the Supreme Court speech that intends to innate a violent reaction or breaches the peace. For instance the case, Chaplinsky v. Hampshire (1940) Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah 's Witness, was using a public sidewalk as a platform in downtown Rochester, handing out pamphlets and labeling organized religion a "racket." After a large crowd had begun to form blocking the roads and
other matters, they usually take it up with the court. The court weighs in only when an individual decides that interconnecting the court with their problem, is the solution. A civil rights case that I had found was the 10-2777 Wal-Mart Stores, INC V. Dukes. The case states that “The millions of class members collectively seek billions of dollars in monetary relief under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, claiming that tens of thousands of Shruti Patel Mrs Sharifian Federal Government
obtained, but bars them from publishing the material if they were a party to getting the illegally obtained information. After this, Allen goes over cases that question the Daily Mail Principle. According to Allen, the Supreme Court’s judgement in Snyder v. Phelps bolsters WikiLeaks’ defense because the material that they publish is a “matter of public concern.” Finally, Allen goes over two cases related to the War on Terror and finds “that courts may be reluctant to protect speech under the First Amendment