Snyder Vs Phelps Case Study

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

Not affiliated with any southern baptist or general baptist churches, the thirty-nine member (The Journal) Westboro Baptist Church is primarily known for its continued protest against the LGBT community, the Catholic Church, and the military (Wikipedia). The westboro Baptist Church’s first public service was held on November 27, 1955(Wikipedia). This was the first time the church publicly condemned the world. Most recently the Westboro Baptist Church have agreed with the shooting at the Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida stating that God sent Omar Mateen to kill the gays because “God hates fags.” While other churches preach about loving one another as god has loved them, the westboro

The Westboro Baptist Church is a group that has been in the spotlight for the last two decades because of their unusual tactic of picketing at soldier’s funerals. The act is motivated by the notion that America’s moral are being corrupted by their acceptance of homosexuality. The act of picketing of soldier’s funerals according to the group is motivated by the fact that it is a time when mourners are emotionally vulnerable and they think of their mortality. They believe that by picketing in soldier’s funerals their message is 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 in the decision. However, that is not the case because the case was an IIED case among others, it was a personal one. As long as the group coordinates with public authorities and does not break laws, then their acts are nothing more than nuisances that should not get in the way of celebrating the life of the dead.

In 1963, four children were killed in the bombing of Birmingham’s Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. Martin Luther King and Eugene Patterson both delivered eulogies after the deaths of Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Cynthia Diane Wesley, and Carole Robertson. The death of these children were not in vain. They aided Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Both eulogies have sentiments of hope and responsibility and use repetition.

Funeral protests have been an issue for years. During this most recent war, as soldiers were coming home to be laid to rest, Westboro Baptist Church made headlines by protesting at the funerals of fallen soldiers. During the services, members of the church would gather outside of many of the military funerals waving signs that had offensive messages on them such as, “God Hates You”, and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”. The members of this church believe that the death of the soldiers is God’s punishment for the tolerance of homosexuality in the United States. Last year the U.S, Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects these groups and any others who

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

Although the book was challenged nearly seventeen years ago, the school district suffers their own form of injustice in today’s community; problems that would have impacted the challenging even more, are just now being brought to the surface. The hate crimes were no different, these acts of violence and intolerance put the safety of the high school on the line. One day a student found a swastika drawn in a bathroom of Paul Schreiber high school, students in the community don’t tolerate that kind of behavior “hate does not represent who were are, or who we are meant to be as a community,” (McAtee 1). The book being challenged was the board’s way of deflecting these kinds of actions from happening, ultimately they happen anyway. Just last year, a bomb threat was made at the local high school. The bomb threat was notified and police increased to safely watch the schools in the area. It was classified as an “unconfirmed and unrealistic” bomb threat, but nonetheless, the police came to protect anyway. The students don’t want this kind of behavior in their schools as well as board members. The Board was not just looking at the time of the present, but wanted to ensure the safety of the students that had yet to come. Banning a book does not change what goes on outside the pages of a book.Violence is in everyday society, there’s no stopping

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

I did some research and what keeps coming up is the U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder. The church protested his funeral and it sparked tremendous outrage amongst a lot of people. What is sad is that the court ruled that the protesters were protected under free speech. The ruling was an 8-1 and was won by a land slide in the churches favor. This blew me out of the water reading that Chief Justice John Roberts stated that "Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern." And in this specific case, the judges determined the words on Westboro’s signs indeed dealt with “matters of public import” (Gregory 2011). Free speech is a beautiful thing, but when you want to basically shit on someone’s funeral especially when that person fought for your freedom is wrong in my eyes and there should be bans for protesters on certain occasions. Private matters should be only the family and others not a huge mob of people ragging on soldiers and other situations. I am not a soldier and it made me mad that these people would basically slander this man who died to fight for

Recently the Ohio State University refused to rent campus space to white nationalist Richard Spencer so he could speak. While this is understandable considering the message that Spencer has been known to preach, the Ohio State University has been accused of denying Richard Spencer his first amendment right. An attorney for Ohio State told Spencer that while the University valued freedom of speech, the speach would cause a serious threat to public safety. Spencer’s response was a lawsuit against Ohio State University. Spencer had sued several other schools in the past as they wouldn’t allow him to speak and it appears that he has now sued Ohio State.

In the short period between the publication of the article and Craven’s death a few weeks later, the small-town newspaper made a big wave. The Laurel Leader-Call story received national attention, receiving praise from liberals and upsetting conservatives. Well-known news sources such as The Huffington Post and The Christian Post picked up the story from Leader Call and referred to it in their publications. The responses to the Leader-Call article, which poured in from around the nation, ranged from agreement with and support for Powell and Craven, to condemning the Leader-Call for covering the ceremony. The impact of the Leader-Call article was tremendous, as the story went national and revealed conflicting political and moral ideologies in the traditionally conservative state of Mississippi.

Roberts, Jr. (Gregory, Sean.) The court argued that the church was speaking on “matters of public concern” and not "matters of purely private significance. " Discussion on matters of public concern is protected by the first amendment. The court examined the content, context, and form of the speech, arguing that the messages being conveyed were not directed at Snyder, but about the U.S.’ stance on homosexuality (Facts and Case Summary). Phelps and his supporters had not been directly at the funeral, making the messages spoken about relating to the broad topic and not Snyder himself.

With the changing landscape occurring in this county, it appears the church, in particular, the black church has come under attack again. Attacking the church and communities it serve is nothing new. Burning and bombing of churches have been a part of America’s fabric since enslaved and freed Africans began to embrace Christianity. The killing of its members is even more common. However, the recent episodes of violence suggest a rebuking of laws and human rights, which shapes the country’s recent paradigm.

In May 1993, Bill Hicks's Revelations show was broadcasted on television in the UK. A priest, "deeply offended by its blasphemous content," wrote to the broadcaster and complained about it. Therefore, Bill Hicks wrote this informal letter directly back to the priest. I really enjoyed reading this letter because it was sarcastic, which made it entertaining, and to the point. The tone of this letter was defensive but respectful, and I think that was a good way to construct this letter. Bill Hicks kept repeating the phrase 'freedom of speech' to emphasize that not everyone has the same opinions but everyone has the right to say them. I completely agree with everything Bill Hicks stated in this letter and that's another reason why I enjoyed it

“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 distress, after Westboro picketed Phelps’ son’s funeral. Westboro disputed this, claiming their protests were protected under The First Amendment.