Running head: FREEDOM OF MORAL SPEECH
Freedom of Moral Speech
Grace Rybicki
Madonna University
November 19th, 2013
1
FREEDOM OF MORAL SPEECH
2
Abstract
Funerals are a necessary component of the human grieving process and also can hold deep
spiritual meaning. When a group of protestors from a splinter Baptist church held revolting signs
at the funeral of a fallen Marine, the father of the soldier attempted to sue the church for
emotional grief. The court case of the father, Albert Snyder, was eventually taken to the Supreme
Court where the justices grappled with the limitations regarding the freedom of speech. While
the First Amendment may at first appear to protect actions such as this, there are limitations to
this right which prohibit abusive and vulgar acts. It is possible, however, that eight of the nine
justices did not take these limitations into account out of fear of being accused of stealing the
First Amendment from the people. Never the less their fear does not justify their decision, if
there were ever a time to enact this limitation of freedom of speech this case would have been it.
It is also questionable that while the Supreme Court did not recognize Snyder’s plea, various
states implemented laws against protesting at funerals to deter Westboro Baptist Church (WBC)
as well as the US government last year. This makes the Supreme Court appear inconsistent with
the rest of the government on how to interpret freedom of speech. The court claimed that the
messages held by WBC were pertaining to the public and not the funeral but this is hardly
believable since the members of this church traveled a great distance for this very occasion. The
other side may argue that the Supreme Court made the right decision because once the
government begins to limit freedom of speech in one way, they may not stop. It is important to
remember, however, that as officials elected by the people, the Supreme Court was given the
power to make this decision by US citizens. Albert Snyder’s fight for the dignity of his son will
not be forgotten and will continue to inspire Americans for many years to come.
FREEDOM OF MORAL SPEECH
3
Freedom of Moral Speech
Why do people have funerals for their departed loved ones? Losing someone is painful
enough, why is the process of burying them drawn out with a wake, prayer services and then
burial? It’s because it’s part of the grieving process for friends and family come to comfort those
suffering. It is to help them celebrate the life that has gone and to realize they are not alone, there
are people who love and support them. If the deceased was Catholic, as Matthew Snyder was, the
funeral mass is believed to help lift him to heaven with the prayers of those there. However, the
funeral mass of Matthew Snyder, a U.S. Marine who died in action in Iraq, was picketed by a
group of people from Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) holding offensive signs which said
“Thank God for Dead Soldiers” (Simmons, 2007) and other offensive slogans. The events from
this day led into a long, drawn-out court case that the father of the fallen hero, Albert Snyder,
waged against WBC trying to sue them for their offensive actions. WBC fought back claiming
that according to the First Amendment it was their Constitutional right to protest and ended up
winning the case. Although the first amendment needs to be protected, WBC should not have
won in Snyder v. Phelps, the court failed to remember that there are limitations to the freedom of
speech and to consider the disrespect being shown to one of the nation’s fallen heroes and his
family.
Before the decision of the Supreme Court can be argued, it is first necessary to explain
exactly what happened at Snyder’s funeral. According to an article published the day after the
funeral in a local newspaper near to where the incident occurred, a group from WBC traveled
from Topeka, Kansas to protest at the funeral which took place in Westminster, Maryland
(Davis, 2006). The article states that the group followed protocol by contacting the local police
ahead of time to inform them they would be protesting. They stood at the legal distance as they
FREEDOM OF MORAL SPEECH
4
held signs which claimed God hated soldiers and their deaths were due to the tolerant position
the U.S. holds of homosexuals (Davis, 2006). One of the protesters told the reporter they were
there to help the people at the funeral realize why soldiers were dying or to “help these families
connect the dots” (Davis, 2006).
This funeral was not the first one WBC picketed at, but Albert Snyder, the father of the
fallen marine, wanted to ensure that it was the last. He tried to sue the church for their actions,
according to the official court document, for, “intentional infliction of emotional distress,
intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy” (The Supreme Court, 2011). However, Fred
Phelps, the pastor of the church, fought back and ended up winning in a case that was eventually
taken to the Supreme Court. In the court document from Snyder v. Phelps, it was stated that the
claims WBC made that day could not be linked directly to any individual at the funeral and was
relevant to the public, which therefore meant the group was protected by the first amendment
(The Supreme Court, 2011).
Since this case dealt with freedom of speech, before arguing it, one should review the
First Amendment which is what ensures this right. The amendment states that, “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Charters of Freedom,
n.d.). The Founding Fathers established this right and put it as the very First Amendment because
they saw its value and believed it was something all were entitled to. Although they do not
specify if vulgar and grotesquely abusive protesting is permissible, it is stated in the Bill of
Rights Institute that when there is freedom of speech in a democratic society it is necessary that
is be practiced “with moderation, respect, and responsibility” (Bill of Rights Institute, n.d.).
FREEDOM OF MORAL SPEECH
5
It is possible that Phelps was the victor in this monumental court case because the justices
who heard it were afraid of being accused of taking away the right of the First Amendment, the
freedom of speech. Of the various freedoms Americans value, this is arguably the one that is held
most dear; there is a reason it came first in the Constitution after all. The Founding Fathers came
from a land where they were told what religion they had to practice and what political views they
had to hold. They knew of countries where citizens were thrown in jail for speaking out against
the largely accepted beliefs of the time. Even though America has been an independent country
for hundreds of years now, the people still cling fiercely to this belief because of the price it was
bought at as well as the price that has been paid over the years to defend it.
The decision the court had to make was anything but simple and in no way one
dimensional. On one hand the acts that had been done were truly heinous; however, were they
outrageous enough to de denied the protection of the First Amendment? It is possible for the
severity and cruelty of some instances to be denied the right to the first amendment. One of the
judges who heard the case of Snyder v. Phelps was reported in an article from the New York
Times to have informed the jurors that if the statements made were horrendous and seemed
beyond irrational to an ordinary citizen that they did not need to merit the protection of the First
Amendment that Phelps was requesting (Simmons, 2007). Since there are exceptions to the right
of the First Amendment, one has to wonder that if this case did not qualify as one then what
exactly would? When a group of people inflict such pain on a man that it gives him sufferings as
severe as an inability to sleep at night and clinical depression (Nuckols, 2010) they should no
longer be entitled to their freedom of speech. It is clear that they have abused it to bring harm on
an innocent citizen and also a father whose son’s life was sacrificed protecting the very freedom
they used to protect themselves from being sued.
FREEDOM OF MORAL SPEECH
6
Even though the Supreme Court failed to see this sad irony in Snyder v. Phelps judges
and other politicians all across America did not, which makes the Supreme Court’s decision even
more questionable. Even though the justices were almost unanimously in favor of WBC, since
the emergence of WBC at military funerals other politicians have worked hard to deter WBC
from protesting within their individual state boundaries. An article published in a local Arizona
newspaper described an emergency legislation that was passed by Arizona lawmakers to prevent
WBC from attending any of their funerals (Rau, 2013). This law was passed unanimously and
almost overnight by state Governor Jan Brewer; it states that protestors were not allowed a
funerals one hour before or after as well as during and prescribed a set distance at which they
must keep from grieving family members (Rau, 2013). Arizona was not the only state to set up
its own personal preventative measures to keep WBC away from their funerals, other states
followed suit as well. Although the Supreme Court Justices apparently valued the unconditional
right to the First Amendment before the rights of someone who was verbally abused, it appears
that this belief is not widespread throughout the country.
Congress followed suit in 2012 by passing an act which outlawed demonstrations at
military funerals two hours before or after the service and demanded that demonstrators stay at
least 300 feet away from grieving family members (House Committee of Veterans’ Affairs, n.d.).
Why is it, that only a year after the final verdict of the case, Congress passes a bill outlawing the
very thing that was just protected? It is definitely a good thing that this law is now in place, and
it is understandable that different parts of the government will hold different opinions; they are
all individuals with their unique perspectives. However, for something as pivotal as this, where a
grieving father of a man who sacrificed his life so the members of WBC can continue to enjoy
their freedom of speech, it seems almost laughable that only a year after being defeated and
FREEDOM OF MORAL SPEECH
7
losing time, money and emotional effort, his case essentially “won” after all. While it must be a
relief to know that his efforts were not completely in vain, it is alarming to see how differently
Congress and the Supreme Court can interpret the First Amendment.
Another argument against the final decision of the Supreme Court springs from the
statement in the official court document of Snyder v. Phelps which claimed that the reason
Snyder could not sue WBC over the offensive signs they paraded the day of the funeral was
because, “The signs reflected Westboro’s condemnation of much in modern society, and it
cannot be argued that Westboro’s use of speech on public issues was in any way contrived to
insulate a personal attack on Snyder from liability” (The Supreme Court, 2011). There is truth
behind this, WBC members firmly believe the United States is on the fast track to hell and wants
all to be aware of this. However, the fact that they traveled from Kansas to Maryland and that
several of their signs were condoning soldiers, while in the near vicinity of the funeral mass of a
fallen marine begs the question, how was their message not a “personal attack” on the mourners
at the funeral? It was not by mere coincidence they chose that particular place and time, they
went with a purpose and even though it is certain they want all to see their message, in this
instance it was undeniably targeted at a specific group.
However easy or hard it may be to accept the court’s statement that the signs held by
WBC that day of Matthew Snyder’s funeral were not pertaining to the mourners, it still does not
answer the question of why they were not denied the right to the First Amendment based off of
the vulgarity of their messages. The problem is, there is such a delicate line to draw in this
situation. Albert Snyder did not win his argument in court that he was a captive audience because
the signs were not visible to him during the funeral mass and did not disrupt it as the picketers
stood at the prescribed distance for legal demonstrations (The Supreme Court, 2011). Although it
FREEDOM OF MORAL SPEECH
8
is true that Snyder was unaware of the demonstration until after the funeral when he saw it on
TV, it cannot take aware the sheer disrespect displayed. There was a man mourning his dead son
who had died in a very tragic manner and just outside, although unbeknownst to him, were
people standing with signs essentially condemning his fallen son along with the entire country to
hell. This scene is almost parallel to that of a child who is vulnerable and crying while other
children make fun of him behind his back; the fact that he was unaware does not make it any
more acceptable.
Those in favor of the decision the court made on Phelps v. Snyder held the belief that
even though the content of the signs held by the WBC were grotesque and appalling, if the
government begins to limit freedom of speech, it may very well end up being the beginning of a
long, slippery slope. If justices of the Supreme Court have the power to enable a church to be
sued for protesting, what will be next? It is true that when allowing exceptions for the
Constitution it obviously must be done with extreme caution. These laws were not put in place
without reason and should not by any means be taken lightly regardless of the demeanor of the
offender. However, the Constitution was written for the welfare of the people of the United
States; as a democratic society, it is the people who elect the officials they want to interpret and
carry out the law. Given the fact that there are meant to be restrictions to the first amendment as
mentioned earlier, what better group to make the decision for the difficult cases such as this one
other than the justices of the Supreme Court? There are laws set in place but it is up to them to
interpret when someone may or may not have violated these laws. This is how the system is set
up and why the country has a Supreme Court.
Since it is accompanied by such a strong wave of emotions and confusion, the Supreme
Court case of Snyder v. Phelps will not be easily forgotten. America is composed of a very
FREEDOM OF MORAL SPEECH
9
diverse society but one thing many people agree on is the respect of the veterans especially those
who died in action. It is unfortunate the father of this fallen marine made such a strong effort to
punish those who disrespected his son’s memory and was unable to be successful. However, his
efforts can be remembered as valiant as those of his sons. His son went to war and died
protecting him, he in turn fought to protect the dignity of his fallen son and his son’s fellow
soldiers.
FREEDOM OF MORAL SPEECH
10
References
Bill of Rights Institute. (n.d.). First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (1791). Retrieved from
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapediabill-of-rights/first-amendment/freedom-of-speech/
The Charters of Freedom. (n.d.). Bill of Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Davis, G. (2006). At carroll funeral, a national protest. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2006-03-11/news/bal-te.md.marine11mar11_1_militaryfunerals-westboro-baptist-church-shirley-phelps-roper
House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. (n.d.) The honoring America’s veterans and caring for
camp lejeune families act of 2012. Retrieved from http://veterans.house.gov/HR1627
Nuckols, B. (2010). Albert Snyder, marine father, wages court battle against funeral protests. The
Huffington Post: Politics. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/albert-snyder-marine-fath_n_535221.html
Rau, A. B. (2013). Arizona law to keep protesters away from funerals. Azcentral.com. Retrieved
from http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20130702westboro-baptist-yarnellfire-law.html
Simmons, M. (2007). Marine’s father sues church for cheering son’s death. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/26funeral.html?_r=0
Supreme Court of the United States. (2011). Snyder v. Phelps ET AL. Retrieved from
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf