Supreme Court torn over speech rights, private rites
A
family's right to privacy for the funeral of a slain marine clashed
with a small church's right to preach its antigay gospel in a case
argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on October 6. Despite religion's
prominent role in the dispute, however, the justices seemed most
interested in, and perplexed by, the limits of another freedom
guaranteed by the First Amendment: free speech.
Westboro Baptist
Church, an independent congregation with about 50 members based in
Topeka, Kansas, has picketed nearly 200 military funerals in recent
years with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "You're Going to
Hell" and "God Hates Fags."
Read our latest issue or browse back issues.
Founded in 1955 by Fred Phelps and
composed mostly of his relatives, Westboro Baptist Church believes that
God is punishing America for its tolerance of homosexuality by killing
U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2006, Albert Snyder
filed a federal lawsuit against Westboro after church members picketed
near his marine son's funeral in a Catholic church in Westminster,
Maryland. Snyder argues that Westboro infringed on his rights of
privacy and religious expression and intentionally inflicted emotional
distress with nasty signs targeted at his son, Lance Corporal Matthew
Snyder.
In addition to the funeral protest, Westboro posted a
poem on its website accusing Snyder and his ex-wife of raising their
son "to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery."
A
federal court had partially sided with Snyder and awarded him $5
million in damages; an appeals court overturned that verdict, ruling
for the church.
The justices seemed torn between sympathizing
with Snyder's anguish and defending Westboro's right to picket and
preach, no matter how offensive its message.
Any ruling they
deliver, the justices know, will have far-reaching implications for the
First Amendment. The justices repeatedly raised hypothetical situations
and pondered where to draw the lines between free speech and
harassment, between offering opinions on public issues and targeting
private citizens with invective.
Sean Summers, Snyder's attorney,
said, "I would hope the First Amendment wasn't enacted to allow people
to disrupt and harass people at someone else's private funeral."
Summers painted Westboro members as publicity hounds who sought to
"hijack someone else's private event" to promote their church and
inflict harm on the Snyders.
But the justices questioned whether
Westboro's apocalyptic picket signs were targeted at the Snyder family
or the country at large. "It sounds like 'You,'" in signs like "You Are
Going to Hell," is directed at "the whole rotten society in their
view," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Westboro used many of
the same signs to protest at the Maryland state capital the same day as
the Snyder funeral, Ginsburg noted, indicating that the church was
likely targeting societal issues, not private families. Several
justices alluded to the high court's long history of protecting speech
on matters of public concern.
But Ginsburg and other justices
also appeared to empathize with the Snyders' plight. "This is a case
about exploiting a private family's grief," she said. Ginsburg then
asked Phelps's daughter and church attorney, Margie Phelps, "Why should
the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this marine's family when you
have so many other forums for getting across your message?"
Margie Phelps said that Americans are questioning why U.S. soldiers
are
dying and that Westboro Baptist Church has answers people need to hear.
"We have an answer to your question—our answer is that you have to stop
sinning if you want this trauma to stop happening.
"Nation, hear
this little church," Phelps said. "If you want to stop dying, stop
sinning. That's the only purpose of this little church."
Justice
Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged that some of Westboro's pickets, such as
those condemning America or its wars, involve public speech and are
thus likely protected by the First Amendment. "I fully accept you're
entitled in some circumstances to speak about any political issue you
want," Sotomayor said. "But what's the line between doing that and then
personalizing it and creating hardship for the individual?"
Phelps
argued that Snyder became a public figure entangled with public issues
when he spoke out against the war after his son's death in 2006.
The
justices largely ignored one of the key questions they had asked
lawyers from both sides to address: Does the First Amendment's
freedom-of-speech clause trump its clause affirming freedom of religion
and peaceful assembly? Legal experts say Snyder's case is weak here,
since the Constitution bars only government infringement on the free
exercise of religion, not private acts like those of Westboro's members.
Justice
Stephen Breyer, who said the Snyder case is not necessarily about the
funeral, seemed more troubled over the lack of legal guidelines about
broadcasting "very obnoxious" personal attacks online. "To what extent
can they put that on the Internet?" Breyer asked, speaking of
Westboro's poem about Matthew Snyder. "I don't know what the rules
ought to be." —RNS
