Snyder v. Phelps (2010)
Watch this discussion of the current SCOTUS case, Snyder v. Phelps on the PBS News Hour.
Oyez.org - Snyder v. Phelps
SCOTUSblog - Snyder v. Phelps main page and Argument Preview (class handout)
While the case may divide American emotionally over the issue of homosexuality, the case being decided is a more fundamental question of free speech vs. privacy. Remember, basic constitutional civil liberties can often conflict.
What do you think are the best arguments for each side? How does the precedent on privacy set by Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) connect to this case? What about cases protecting free speech, such as Hustler v. Falwell (1988)? What do you think the outcome will be? Discuss connections to class and other thoughts you have on the case.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't care if there is a heaven, as long as there is a hell for people like the phelps. The main argument that marge has to give is that she thinks the boundaries to the first amendment are unlimited, and she promptly uses those rights to describe how she thinks her stones are bigger than snyder's. Snyder on the other hand essentially states that he doesnt appreciate the fact that his son's funeral was desecrated by a gang of psychotic cousin humpers (forgive me for jumping to conclusions). Griswold v Connecticut's verdict relating to the right to privacy and Hustler v Faldwell's verdict relating to freedom of speech both apply to this case. I believe that if any common sense or judgement is to be involved in the outcome of this case, it would end in snyder's favor and the phelps would all be rounded up and sent to the moon... but in a constitutional sense, i believe the phelps will win because there is nothing in the first amendment that prevents people from being intolerant or idiotic in their use of language, unless it poses a direct threat to society. Although i believe that the very presence of the phelps is a threat because knowing that there are people like them walking on the same ground as me makes me want to go lobotomize myself with a can opener...
ReplyDeleteYeah...what he said...
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with Firas and Coda. I believe that Synder deserves to win. However the Phelps have the right to protest, and they did so peacefully. A question that does come up is that do they have the right to protest on private grounds such as a church were the funeral was being held. Thus the privacy in this case in connected by the Griswold v. Connecticut case. Privacy in general is not protected. The Phelps may not have protested in the smartest fashion, and he may have very well have different opinions from me but unfortunately I still believe that the 1st Amendment still protects him because he didn't present any danger towards the public. :( Hustler v. Faldwell connects with the 1st Amendment and cases in terms of libel. You need to have evidence into order to prove that didn't just have a desire to offend you. In the end Phelps gets the victory, even though I hope Synder wins the case.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe that Snyder deserves to win this case, his chances are very slim. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Phelps from doing what they did. Unless Snyder's attorney can convince the jury that their actions created a direct threat to society (not likely) the court will probably decide that the Phelp's actions were protected by the First Amendment. Not only are the Phelps protected, but there isn't much to protect the privacy of a funeral, seeing as they are public events.
ReplyDeleteWell first off, I'd just like to say that the Phelps family has some major psychological and moral issues... #1 God doesn't hate. #2 how can anyone feel good about themselves after making a sign stating "thank God for dead soldiers" AT a funeral FOR a deceased solder!? #3 Margie Phelps is really wrong in the head. I'm pretty sure that when someone enters the military its not because he/she is supporting homosexuality. Has she ever heard of PATRIOTISM? Loyalty to one's country?... And who is she to tell Snyder to "man up" about the loss of his son... I'll stop. Anyway... Aside from my thoughts and all morality excluded, the Westboro Baptist church has the right to freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment. Phelps definitely has an advantage over Snyder in this aspect. The fact that the Westboro Baptists didn't go onto the church grounds and their claim that the case wasn't about private matters, but merely protests against homosexuality and their outlook on the military with this subject, portrayed no indication that they invaded privacy and that their freedom to peacefully assemble and right of speech should be upheld. Since the Phelps didn't state any facts directed at Matthew and his family, Westboro's First Amendment rights are protected because of the verdict in Hustler v. Falwell. Since funerals are public events, Snyder didn't have any claim to privacy of invasion (Griswold v. Connecticut stating the right to privacy.) An argument for Snyder is that Phelps had an intentional infliction of mental and emotional distress on Matthew's family, but this moral and emotional statement will not win in the Court. I feel horrible for Snyder and his family. A loss of a family member is hard enough, and they don't need protesters against Matthew's service. Phelps has the protection of the First Amendment, though. Phelps will probably win this case, but maybe new laws protecting funerals, ect. will come of the case.
ReplyDeleteSorry! I had NO intention of making this THAT long...
ReplyDeleteThis issue does not divide America emotionally, everyone is against the Phelps. The argument for the Phelps is freedom of speech and right to protest. The argument for Snyder is right to privacy and common sense. Griswold v Connecticut provides protection for marriages not funerals, so I'm not sure if it applies. Hustler v. Faldwell seems to apply more to this case because of the stupid things said in both cases. Speech won in that case and will probably win in this case. These cases should be based on common sense, but people abuse power so they would need to vote in favor Phelps.
ReplyDeleteWell, first off the Phelps are incredibly stupid and are clearly abusing their first amendment rights! There arguments dont make sense, like asuming that every person in the millitary is pro gay right? WTH! Just because you are in the military doesnt mean that you are pro-gay rights but the Plelps assume this which is not logical. Plus if they wanna protest go ahead but at a freakin furneral?! Do they have hearts?.. i hope the whole Phelps clan ends up in prison and not allowed to EVER protest at a funeral again!!
ReplyDeleteok this just ruined my night by pissing me off!!first of all i just need to say that the phelps need to get a life!! like seriously traveling around LOOKING specifically for funerals for killed US soldiers to protest at??!!! wtf!! just because none of them had the balls to enlist and risk their lives for our country doesn't mean they have to hate the ones that do!! marge (which is a stupid name to begin with) is the stupidest most wrong person i have ever seen and listening to her talk made me want to vomit! her main argument is that homosexuality is wrong and that if you are in the military then that automatically means you are for gay rights! thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard! i dont see what DEFENDING YOUR COUNTRY has to do with your sexuality!!! just because someone is in the military doesn't mean "oh my gosh they are for same sex marriages" no! and snyder's only main argument has to do with the good he thinks is in all people (which the phelps obviously lack) that it is just wrong to PROTEST AT A FUNERAL WHILE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO MOURN SOMEONE'S DEATH!!! i really wish all the stupid phelps would go to jail and rot there! but they do have a pretty strong argument with freedom of speech which i hate them for! and they didnt enter the church and it was a public event so they did technically have the right to do what they did i hate when people look specifically to use the rights they have to be stupid and dumb and just get lots of attention! and i just couldnt believe when marge told snyder to man up!! wth! has she ever lost a son??!! althogh she has like 50 so it probably wouldn't matter to her because she's so sick in the head! and i can't believe how offensive some of those signs were!! thy used some offensive words. and really "thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates you" God doesn't hate anyone He loves everyone so i have no idea how these people think they are being religious or whatever IN ANY WAY by protesting with those signs! although i know it won't be enough to win him the case i really liked and agreed with snyder's last comment that now we can't even bury our dead and mourn for our dead in peace and i guess nothing is sacred now thanks to the stupid giant phelps family!!! i just can't see how someone can be totally ok and lack morals enough to protest at a funeral!!! and now when snyder thinks of the burial of his son his memories are going to be haunted by the stupid big phelps family and stupid marge with her stupid name! and i totally agree with firas in that i hope there's plenty of room in hell for all the phelps!
ReplyDeleteW.O.W... okay first off id like to say that i can't even believe that i just watched that, there is something really messed up with the Phelps family. Secondly i am, quite frankly, a bit ashamed to even be a part of the same species as them. Now to make sure i dont just blow up with how unbearably stupid i think that family is, ill get some facts out of the way.. (like everyone else said) Since a funeral is considered a public event, Snyder technically can't claim an invasion of privacy (Griswald's case) and also the first amendment does protect the protesting since Snyder can't use libel as a reason to sue the Phelps' because he doesn't have proof that they were directly/falsely trying to offend him(Faldwell)... okay now about this Margie character.. who in the right mind would even THINK about saying "he needs to man up about his sons death"?!?! I mean she has just about a million children/relatives (considering they were all helping bash the military) i honestly wonder if nobody's died in her family that she doesn't realize (or maybe she's just not competent enough to understand) that its a really hard time, trying to cope with the loss of a loved one? but then again.. based off what she's saying, i wouldn't doubt that she is a lonely unmarried woman with 29 cats and no heart, so she just needed to do something with her time. and about the military just being there for "one reason, and one reason only".. i honestly wonder if they are just THAT ignorant, or truly believe that the military is only meant to support homosexuals?? well either way, what do they think our troops are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea etc.? oh yea, they're probably just there to spread the love of homosexuality all around the world, silly me. (SERIOUSLYYYY!?!?!?!) No. Not.Even.Close. anyway i will wrap this up, quite obviously Phelps will probably (sadly) win because of the protection from the first amendment. But i hope that people see how ridiculous this is and try to put some further restrictions on the 1st amendment of some sort.. or for funerals or something. And as for the Phelps', i hope they look back on this and feel humiliated. (but then again people as stubborn as that, most likely wont change at all) anyyway, sorry for this being so long.
ReplyDeleteand oops got a little carried away its a bit long..
ReplyDeletewell to start off, i think our opinions are basically one in the same, seeing as the question of morals is usually what we lean towards answering first. Legally speaking however, as obnoxious as they are the Phelps' will more than likely win. Their freedom of speech is protected and they weren't breaking any physical laws. The legality of the case is basically as clear as it gets. Personally, if i were in charge of this whole shindig, i'd put all those loonies into a psych ward forever. Yes, we all absolutely comprehend the right to free speech and the right to protest, but the aspect of discretion should also come into play. Protesting at a funeral is blatantly disrespectful in general. Protesting something that didn't even really have to do with the deceased is not only disrespectful, its moronic, and i'm sorry to say that these people understand the law enough to be able to legally defend their own idiocies. Even so, the first amendment protects entirely their actions. Its just a shame though, when our constitutional rights work against whats right, and advocates the wildly immoral.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the Phelps' had their 1st ammendment right to protest. However, while the cemetery was a public space, the funeral was a private event. This is why my opinion is that the Phelps' should be allowed to protest. However, I do believe that a barrier should have been placed a safe distance away from the cemetery and if they wanted to protest, they could protest within that barrier. But since that barrier would probably be out of earshot range for the family of the fallen, it would then have been pointless for them to protest in the 1st place.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the Phelp's family is getting way too much attention for this. It is similar to back before 9/11, when the Qurans were going to be burned by the pastor in Florida. While they did have the freedom of speech, if their radical acts hadn't been so publicized, these acts probably would have failed.
well everybody pretty much has summed it up here. the snyder's cannot win due to the first amendment. but if the phelps have first amendment protection, do the snyders have to right to practice their religion in peace and privacy? sure they protested 1000 feet away, but i think anybody having a funeral for their dead son would agree its too close.
ReplyDeleteI know that we all want the Snyders to win, but they probably wont due to the phelps's first ammendment rights. The court will most likely rule in their favor, unless they want to draw a line where your freedom of speech cannot cross. Personally, I think that the Phelps are taking it way too far. As the dad says, it IS a funeral. It is his right to bury his son the way that he wants. The biggest case that he has is the right to Privacy and that term doesnt even appear in the constitution. All in all, we want know that Snyder is in the right, but the constitution will most likely protect the Phelpses.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone that the Phelps family are sorry excuses for humans. As far as the case goes, I don't know if the Phelpses will win for sure. They are using the first amendment, which is a good weapon, especially since they're defending their speech. They were protesting "peacefully" (in the most demented sense of the word). But what about Snyder's right to peaceful assembly and freedom of religion? It's two liberties in conflict. Actually, its like the same liberty in conflict. I know speech is more adamantly defended, but still, I hope Snyder can still claim 1st amendment protection. (But I suppose that since it was the Westboro "Church" they can claim freedom of religion too...)
ReplyDeleteI think the Hustler v Faldwell case and the New York Times v Sullivan cases set deceiving precedents that (hopefully) Snyder's side can find lopeholes in. Both of these cases deal with PUBLIC FIGURES. In other words, the defendants (Faldwell and Sullivan) were public figures/officials, and the court held that they had to PROVE that actual malice was directed at them. It's like a compensation for being the big guys on campus-you have to deal with the trash people say about you. But Snyder isn't a public figure. I hope there is a way around these court precedents, but it would probably be difficult because how do you define a public figure? (and he is arguably a public figure now that this whole thing is being publicized)
So I guess what I just said was just me trying to convince myself that Snyder has a chance when really, the protest didn't break any law. Snyder can't even use privacy (Griswold) because his privacy wasn't even invaded. I agree with Erin, that there should be some regulation on where you can protest. There are such things as "Free Speech Zones" (I love wikipedia) but I think they should expand them so that they can be applied at things like funerals and not just when the president walks by, for example. I'm just going to be subjective for a little bit: I think they should prohibit any form of protest at or near a funeral. This was like emotional lynching. Like he said in the video, this has never happened before, ever. NO one has EVER been deranged enough to do this, so maybe the courts will find a way to do what everyone knows is right without drawing a line that is unconstitutional.
bottom line...
ReplyDeleteThe Snyders have very little to argue constitutionally against Phelps. Phelps might win but will probably suffer from it because of the media coverage causing an almost universal negative reaction to their protests.
Fish Fish Fish
ReplyDeleteFish Fish Fish
ReplyDelete