The Phelps Court Case

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

Another important Supreme Court case that examined the reasonable limits on freedom of expression is R v. Whatcott. The Whatcott ruling also challenged the jurisdictional issues of free speech. William Whatcott, a Christian activist who advocated strongly against homosexuality and same sex marriage. Whatcott distributed several flyers in Saskatchewan that discussed political, social and moral issues. Many of these flyers heavily denouncing homosexuality using strong offensive language denouncing homosexuality. The public distribution of these anti homosexual flyers put Whatcott under a great amount of scrutiny by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission found that Whatcott violated section 14 of the human rights code which states no one shall publish or distribute material that promotes hatred of any group of people. Whatcott’s activities were ruled as hate speech against homosexuals and was ordered to pay compensation to his complainants. After this case was appealed several times it was eventually heard by the Supreme Court. The question and arguments of the R v. Whatcott decision was whether human rights tribunals should be allowed restrict freedom of expression under Charter framework. (Schutten and Haigh:3-5) However, there was a golden opportunity that was missed to define the jurisdiction between political expression and hate speech. The Supreme Court could have looked at past precedent cases and Supreme Court doctrines, but

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

Though all protests may not result in violent activities, they are still able to leave a detrimental effect on society, as protests may violate people’s rights, especially the right to privacy. A specific example of one’s right to privacy being violated by protests is the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals (Anti- Defamation League 2013). Although these protests are peaceful a majority of the time, they disrupt military funerals and infringe on the grieving family’s right to privacy. More specifically, those who are mourning the loss of a loved one expect to do this in private, not with protesters rioting in the background, disrupting the secluded funeral. Eventually, limitations were placed on these unconstitutional protests stating that protesters must be a certain distance from the funeral and can only protest two hours before and after the funeral (The Huffington Post 2016) . Though some may believe both the right to petition and assemble should be unlimited, this case demonstrates that these rights must be restricted in order to protect the contradiction of others’ right to

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

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.

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

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

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: Testing the Limits of Free Speech Nicole Cico AP Government - 3AB January 7, 2018  Snyder v. Phelps was one of the most controversial court cases in recent history. It truly made people question where the lines for free speech should be drawn. This case set in stone the freedom of speech guaranteed to all citizens by the First Amendment, even protecting hate speech with ill-intent.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision in favor of Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; stating that the funeral was undisturbed by the protestors. The protestors were about 1,000 feet away on public land and the Snyder family could not see more than just the top of the protestors’ signs. There was no indication that the protest interfered with the funeral service itself. Phelps and the Westboro

In the case of Snyder vs Phelps The family of a departed Marine named Lance Cpl, Matthew Snyder put forth legal action against parties of the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing at his funeral. According to the family the church was responsible for defamation, invasion of privacy and the deliberate punishment of emotional suffering, The members of the church held signs that read "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops" at Snyder's funeral. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett granted the Snyder family $5 million in damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the decision violated the First Amendment's protections of religious expression. Does the First Amendment defend protesters who deliberately cause emotional

“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.