The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision on Wednesday ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church's right to protest at a military funeral, despite using hateful slogans and speech.
The decision upheld a lower appellate court's ruling that the suit brought by Albert Snyder father of fallen soldier Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, should have been dismissed at the trial court level. Mr. Snyder sued the Church asking for damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion of the Court. "As a nation we have chosen...to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."
Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) members arrived at the site of Matthew's funeral and displayed signs saying things like, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the Judgement." WBC was founded by pastor Fred Phelps and most news accounts of incidents involving picketing by members, note that the congregation seems to consists mostly of Phelps extended family members.
The point of the protest was based on the belief of members that the United States brings misfortune upon itself for its beliefs that are in direct conflict with the teachings of the WBC. Reinforcing that at military funerals, among others, brings attention to its beliefs that scorn Jews, gays and others.
The WBC had announced its intention to picket at the funeral of Christina Taylor Green, the nine year-old girl killed in the attempt on the life of U.S. Rep. Gabby Gifford. Their plans were called off after a huge explosion of negative press covered the Internet. Although Matthew Snyder was raised a Catholic, the funerals do not have to be for citizens who fall into the categories of those hated by the Church, which is what seems to elicit the reactions of horror and grief from the families and friends who gather to pay respects to their loved one.
Mr. Snyder filed his lawsuit in 2007 seeking damages for invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy in addition to the emotional distress claim. A jury ruled in his favor, awarding almost $11 million in damages, $8 million of which was couched as punitive damages, usually reserved for egregious breaches of civil law. The appellate court vacated the entire decision based on First Amendment grounds and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case during its 2010-2011 session.
Today's decision reinforces the right of some to spew odious and hateful words despite the shock and hurt they cause. The only dissenting voice in the 8-1 vote comes from Justice Samuel Alito who wrote in part, "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."
.
Comment and add to the story without registration, but keep the comments meaningful please. Links are not accepted.
