Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court Ruling

The recent eight to one Supreme Court decision on the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, Snyder v. Phelps, was not made on whether the church had the First Amendment right to engage in such activities. The decision of the court was on whether the First Amendment protects such activities from tort liability. The court held that even offensive and hurtful public speech is protected speech.

Justice Samuel Alito argued in his dissent that Westboro Baptist Church’s activities were directed against Matthew Snyder and his family as private figures and, as such, that their speech is not public speech. Based on this understanding of their actions, he argues that they can be sued for intentional infliction of emotional damage. He points out the strenuous nature of passing the test of “intentional infliction of emotional damage and argues that because the standard is strenuous that free speech is not substantially affected.” Alito recognized the modus operandi of Westboro Baptist Church is to use platforms such as funerals to gain media attention rather than using more logical platforms like government buildings.

The majority decision, however, correctly reached a different assessment of the facts. In the mind of the majority, the Westboro Baptist Church’s message, as heinous and offensive as it is, is public speech. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the eight member majority. He recognized that the message Westboro Baptist Church displayed is part of a longstanding protest of the policy of the United States military. This decision was correct in stating that the message of Westboro’s protestors was not directed primarily at the Snyder family but rather at the United States and its military in general.

Additionally, the Westboro protestors abided by the rules set for their protest by the town. They moved away from the funeral the required distance, and there is no evidence that they interfered with the funeral by anything more than their presence. Mr. Snyder, himself, admitted that he was only made aware of the protesters’ presence by watching a news broadcast at a later time. The court correctly recognized that choosing a particular platform in order to increase publicity does not transform public speech into private speech.

The actions of Westboro Baptist Church cannot be viewed with anything but the greatest distain. Their activities surely do cause extensive emotional harm to the families participating in the funerals. As a nation, however, we have time and again recognized that the right of free speech necessary to a free society deserves the highest protection the law can provide. As the message of Westboro Baptist Church does not call for nor incite illegal or dangerous activity, it must be protected. The effects of limiting free speech in this area would be vast and terrible. To establish precedent that speech on public and national issues that is offensive or emotionally damaging is subject to tort liability would place substantial limits on political and moral speech in this nation. For example, if a pastor was to preach on the Biblical messages about homosexuality, such a message would in all probability offend or cause emotional damage. Free speech is essential to ordered liberty and must be preserved even when that free speech causes offense.