Snyder V. Phelps Case Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Snyder V. Phelps Case Summary PDF

Description

Nicolas Barnhart 10/16/19 Snyder V. Phelps Case Summary

In the case Snyder V. Phelps, Fred Phelps, founder of Westborough Baptist Church (WBC) and his congregation picketed a funeral for Albert Snyder’s son, Matthew Snyder, a Marine who was killed in Iraq. WBC was about 1000 feet away from the funeral on public land, complied with picketing laws and obeyed police orders. They did not shout anything harmful and remained peaceful during the picketing. During the funeral procession, Snyder drove about 30 feet away from the signs but could not see them. Later that night, he saw the signs on the news and was deeply troubled, later suing WBC for infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Phelps, saying that the picketing was protected under the first amendment and was not a direct attack toward Snyder. Justice Alito had the only dissenting vote based on the fact that WBC brutalized Snyder while he was burying his son. There were several cases cited that aided his dissenting opinion. One case is in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, in which the first amendment does not protect against fighting words, which by nature cause harm or result in immediate disturbance. Another case is in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, in which the first amendment requires that a knowingly false or reckless statement being made be stated without prior investigation on its accuracy. The final case is Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, Where the court recognized that the first amendment protects parodies of public figures, even if they are made and directed to cause distress. Justice Alito argued

that Snyder was not a public figure and that the first amendment protects against any statement that, “may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate.” Justice Alito’s dissenting opinions brought up a lot of good points about what the first amendment says specifically about free speech and what it stands for. I think he summarized his overall dissenting vote with this statement. “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.”...