Snyder family should win against Phelps in Supreme Court case
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to assemble are some of the most valued rights given to us by the U.S. Constitution.
So when there is a conflict between them, the resulting court case is sure to be a hotly debated one.
The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear one such case, Snyder v. Phelps.
The Snyder family was holding a funeral for their son, a Marine killed in battle.
Fred Phelps’ infamous Westboro Baptist Church picketed at the funeral, with their usual “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers” signs.
The Snyder family won a lawsuit, claiming invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
However, the ruling was overturned an appeals court.
The case hinges on three main points: 1) Does Hustler v. Falwell apply to victims who are not public figures? 2) Does freedom of speech trump freedom of religion and the right to assemble? 3) Are funeral attendees considered a “captive audience,” and thus protected from “unwanted communication”?
Question 3 should be an easy yes for the Court, leaving the bulk of the case resting on the other questions.
So, does the landmark case Hustler v. Falwell apply to victims who are not public figures?
To answer this, we look at the background of Hustler, a case that arose after pastor Jerry Falwell was crudely parodied in Larry Flynt’s Hustler magazine.
Falwell sued claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress.
However, the Supreme Court sided with Flynt.
At the heart of the Court’s decision was that “the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those public figures who are ‘intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.’” If the Court rules that Hustler applies non-public figures, that would be a grave misinterpretation of the original case.
That leaves the Court to decide which First Amendment right is the most important to protect.
There is one technicality that could arise — that the picketers were far enough away that they did not directly disrupt the funeral.
However, the court will probably rule that emotional distress could arise merely from the knowledge of the protestors’ presence.
So does the First Amendment allow protestors to picket near a funeral, or was this intentional infliction of emotional distress that violated the Snyders’ right to assemble?
The right to assemble trumps freedom of speech here.
The Court has upheld limitations on speech in the past, including limitations on protesting around abortion clinics.
Surely, the right to peacefully hold a funeral is more sacred than the right to an abortion, and the government has the right to restrict speech when that speech is meant to inflict emotional distress on another person.
The Court should overturn the appeals court decision and rule with the Snyder family.
