Snyder v. Phelps: A Controversial Look at Freedom of Speech

The Westboro Baptist Church is not afraid to make their extreme views on homosexuality and religion known.  In fact, they are infamous for picketing funerals of American soldiers while carrying signs that read “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for IEDs,” among others.
This controversy finally reached the Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 6 in the form of oral argument for the case Snyder v. Phelps. The Westboro Church seeks to reverse an earlier ruling in which Albert Snyder, father of a fallen marine whose funeral was protested, won $11 million from the group.  In deciding whether to overturn this ruling, the Court must determine whether the First Amendment protects the picketing of private funerals.
As tempting as it may be to say that spouting such offensive rhetoric during a family’s time of mourning is unprotected, it is important for the Court to rule that actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are protected.  Without such a strong ruling, the court risks weakening the First Amendment.
It is difficult to argue that the actions of the Westboro Baptist are not repugnant.  The deaths of these troops, who many Americans would quickly label as heroes, are tragic not only for the families involved, but also the country.  The intrusion upon such private moments of remembrance by angry protestors inspires a rare level of disgust.
However, one’s own opposition to the message in question is irrelevant in considering whether it is protected speech.  In Texas v. Johnson, the court found that flag burning, an act many find incredibly offensive, to be a protected form of speech.  It is ultimately the purpose of the First Amendment to allow minority groups, even those as contemptible as the Phelps clan, the ability to speak their mind without fear of repercussions.
But it seems that personal opposition to the group’s methods has definite sway within other sectors of the government.  Forty-two senators, including majority leader Harry Reid, have signed an amicus brief supporting Snyder.  This action seems to be more of a calculated move to gain public approval than to really respect the principles of the Constitution.
Other groups are recognizing the importance of finding for the church.  The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and a host of other newspapers have written editorials arguing that to hold otherwise would be to erode the rights of all Americans.
The oral argument, the transcript of which can be found here, seemed to indicate a liberal-conservative split.  Justice Ginsburg pressed Sean E. Summers, the lawyer for Mr. Snyder, for proof in the history of the court that speech against a private individual was unprotected.  On the other side, Justices Alito and Scalia were particularly quick to dig into the oral argument prepared by Margie J. Phelps, the daughter of the Westboro Baptist Church pastor.
The question that remains is whether the liberal faction is strong enough to sway conservatives to their side.  Supporting the Westboro Baptist Church is an unpopular position with the general public, but it is one that best preserves First Amendment protections.  And preserving the Constitution, not preserving popularity of the Court, should be the real goal of the Justices in this decision.
Photo Credit:  Wikimedia Commons