Phelps v. Snyder pre arguments thread

Dan82 · Sep 29, 2010

Since the Supreme Court is going to hear the case next I’ll start this thread as a place to post any stories on the case before the court hears it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/085992...DeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDcGhlbHBzdnNueWRl

After Matthew Snyder, a U.S. Marine, was killed in Anbar province in Iraq in 2006, some uninvited guests showed up at his funeral at St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster, Md. The Rev. Fred W. Phelps Sr. of the Westboro Baptist Church and several family members came from Kansas holding signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags" and "You're Going to Hell."

There is no question it was hateful stuff. Phelps' self-styled church preaches that God is punishing America because of its tolerance for homosexuality, especially in the military. The Phelps family makes its point by holding protests at military funerals. The Phelpses also posted an "epic poem" online entitled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder," which, among other things, says to his parents, "you raised him for the devil." (See "Should Bigoted Speech Be Free? A Debate in Britain.")

Snyder's father, Albert Snyder, sued. He said that the protests, at the funeral of his only son, made him violently ill. He prevailed on his claims of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress and won a large damage award, but that ruling was reversed on appeal...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/085992...DeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDcGhlbHBzdnNueWRl
Click to expand...

Dan82 · Sep 30, 2010

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100930/pl_ynews/ynews_pl3728

The Supreme Court's 2010-2011 term gets under way next week, and the justices are wasting no time in tackling a case that has the potential to redraw the boundaries of free speech under the First Amendment.

On Oct. 6, the court will hear arguments in a highly charged case known as Snyder v. Phelps.It sets a grieving father who lost his son in Iraq against religious protesters who picketed near the fallen soldier's funeral. The father claims emotional distress and says such demonstrations should not be allowed; the protesters say they were protected under the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly tenets of the First Amendment.

The drama perhaps couldn’t feature a more vilified band of provocateurs – the infamous Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., known for their protests at military funerals, where they display signs sporting slogans like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Don’t Pray for the USA.” They say the signs convey their belief that American soldiers' deaths are God’s punishment for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. They also speak out against the Catholic Church.

While most people are deeply offended by the Phelpses’methods and message, both may be protected under the First Amendment, even though their activities took place near a funeral where the attendees could not simply leave because they found the speech hurtful.

The case has gotten a lot of attention from First Amendment scholars and has also generated an outpouring of support for the grieving father, Albert Snyder. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, 42 U.S. senators and 48 states and the District of Columbia are just some of the groups that have filed briefs in his favor. When an appeals court ordered Snyder to pay about $16,000 of the Phelpses’ legal fees, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly stepped up to make sure he had enough money to cover it...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100930/pl_ynews/ynews_pl3728
Click to expand...

Dan82 · Oct 2, 2010

http://theonebestway.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/thoughts-on-the-costs-of-free-speech/

“And thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.”

My older son recently asked me my opinion in the case of Snyder v. Phelps. Pleasantly surprised that he was taking any interest whatsoever in any Supreme Court cases (for reasons I subsequently discovered and will explain below), I had to admit I had neither an opinion nor, truth be told, even a rudimentary knowledge of the facts of the case. He explained then that the Phelps in question was the notorious disbarred attorney and Westboro Baptist Church pastor Fred Phelps.

Ah, yes, Mr. Phelps and his merry band of homophobic religious fanatics. I explained to my son that I have paid about as much attention to Phelps, et al. as I do to the Jerry Springer Show or, for that matter, to most of the more politely nuanced but no less bigoted or better supported opinions of some of our occasional commenters here. Anyway, for those who share my rational ignorance in such matters, here is an edited version of the inerrant Wikipedia’s statement of the case...

http://theonebestway.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/thoughts-on-the-costs-of-free-speech/
Click to expand...

---------- Post added 2nd Oct 2010 at 02:07 PM ----------

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/01/1852467/churchs-military-funeral-protests.html

The most vexing free speech fight in years confronts the Supreme Court on Wednesday, pitting a loud-mouthed, anti-gay Kansas church against a grieving Pennsylvania father.

The father, Albert Snyder, has already won the popular vote hands-down. Forty-eight states support him. So do 42 senators and all the major veterans' organizations.

The constitutional tally, though, isn't nearly so simple.

"The government may not curtail speech simply because the speaker's message may be offensive to his audience," University of Missouri Law School Professor Christina Wells noted in a legal filing.

In Snyder v. Phelps, justices will decide whether to protect speech that Wells characterized as "provocative, offensive and disrespectful." Wells acknowledged it might even be considered "contemptible."

For all the pain they may have caused, however the public rants against homosexuality by the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., might just be found to be protected by the First Amendment...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/01/1852467/churchs-military-funeral-protests.html
Click to expand...

Dan82 · Oct 2, 2010

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/news/ci_16226507

One thing Al Snyder wants to make clear: His boy fought and died for freedom in Iraq, but not for the right of some "wackos" to spew hate at soldiers' funerals under the protection of the Constitution.

"It's an insult to myself, my family and the veterans to say this is what our military men and women died for," Snyder says, barely concealing his anger.

Yet more than four years after the death of his only son, Matthew, Snyder is in the middle of a Supreme Court case that raises almost precisely that issue.

The court is set to decide whether members of a fundamentalist church in Kansas who picketed Matthew's funeral with signs bearing anti-gay and anti-Catholic invective have a constitutional right to say what they want.

Or, in intruding on a private citizen's funeral in a hurtful way, have the protesters crossed a line and given Snyder the right to collect millions of dollars for the emotional pain they caused?

The justices will hear arguments in the case next Wednesday.

The case is shaping up as a potentially important test of the First Amendment...

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/news/ci_16226507
Click to expand...

Dan82 · Oct 2, 2010

http://cjonline.com/node/77796

On March 8, 2006, the body of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, who was killed five days earlier when his Humvee overturned in combat operations in Al Anbar Province in Iraq, arrived in the United States.

He was 20 years old when he died.

The same day, members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka announced they would picket Snyder's funeral on March 10 in Westminster, Md., a city of 18,000 about 60 miles north of Washington, D.C.

Events were set in motion that have led to legal arguments Wednesday before the U.S. Supreme Court by attorneys representing Albert Snyder, the father of the dead Marine, and the church's legal team.

Each side claims their First Amendment Rights were violated.

Snyder claims the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and assembly, and the Westboro church claims the right to exercise its freedom of speech.

Each side says its First Amendment rights trump the other side.

The fundamentalist church protests funerals of soldiers, contending their deaths are God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality. Bearing signs that included "Semper Fi Fags," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "America is Doomed" and "Don't Pray for the U.S.A.," Westboro Baptist Church pickets protested outside St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster during the funeral of the younger Snyder...

http://cjonline.com/node/77796
Click to expand...

Emberstone · Oct 2, 2010

Too bad we can't just declare the WBC treasonious, and find a small island in the middle of the pacific, and send them there... Bikini atoll sounds like a good option.

There, we can be free from their violent, virulent vitrol, and they can have their own little island in which to enjoy their orgies of hated and child mistreatment, which they are also known for.

Dan82 · Oct 3, 2010

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/03/3076648/funeral-protests-could-upend-common.html

More than 500 mourners walked quietly through rows of flags and into a white chapel on a recent Saturday afternoon to honor a dead soldier.

Lt. Todd Weaver was remembered as a scholar, athlete and born leader. He served in Iraq after high school, graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the College of William and Mary two years ago and was killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan on Sept. 9. He left behind a wife and a 1-year-old daughter.

But before entering the church parking lot, the mourners drove past an unusual demonstration. Scores of flag-waving bikers and students stood near the corner, surrounding three women holding brightly colored signs. They read: "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags" and "You're Going to Hell."

Shirley Phelps-Roper and her two daughters are determined to go where they are not wanted and to spread their message that U.S. soldiers are fighting to promote tolerance of homosexuality. Their funeral pickets have prompted new laws across the nation to keep them well away from grieving families.

When the Supreme Court opens its new term this week, the justices will be confronted with a potentially momentous question. Are vile and hurtful words always protected as free speech, even when the target is a private person, not a public figure?

The case of Snyder v. Phelps, in which a jury in Maryland awarded the father of a dead Marine almost $11 million in damages against the Phelps family after a funeral incident two years ago, is one of two major First Amendment issues to be heard this fall.

The justices also will decide whether California and other states can limit the sale of violent video games to minors. So far, those laws have been struck down on free speech grounds. And the court will rule on other major issues, including whether employees can be forced to reveal their private lives to work on government jobs and whether states can punish employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The ruling on the funeral protesters could upset the common view that the Constitution protects wide-open free speech on the streets and on the Internet. In the past, the high court's great pronouncements on the First Amendment have protected protesters and publishers who clash with the government or with public officials.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/03/3076648/funeral-protests-could-upend-common.html#ixzz11MZin8Kh
Click to expand...

Dan82 · Oct 4, 2010

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/10/argument-preview-protest-vs-privacy/

The Supreme Court will seek to sort out the breadth of free speech, when the expression takes the form of a harshly worded protest staged near the scene of a private funeral for a soldier killed in a foreign war zone. The case of Snyder v. Phelps, et al. (09-751) will be argued at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 6.

No case before the Supreme Court in years has stirred a deeper emotional reaction than has the dispute over the protest tactics of a small Kansas church congregation and its pastor — a reaction so strong that nearly all of the states and the federal government have now passed laws to curb such tactics. The venue the church and its followers most often choose for their protests are private funerals. And, as a case against them reaches the Supreme Court, the particular funeral they targeted was the final rites for a Marine killed in a war zone overseas. It will surely test the Court’s perception of the First Amendment’s tolerance for harshly controversial speech.

The case is Snyder v. Phelps, et al. (09-751). At 10 a.m. Wednesday, Oct. 6, the Court will hear it in a one-hour oral argument. All nine Justices are expected to be on the bench for the hearing. Arguing for Albert Snyder, the father of the dead Marine, will be Sean E. Summers of the York, Pa., firm of Barley Snyder LLC. And arguing for the church pastor, Fred W. Phelps, Sr., his church, and other members of his family will be one of his daughters, Margie J. Phelps, a Topeka, Kan., attorney...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/10/argument-preview-protest-vs-privacy/
Click to expand...

Dan82 · Oct 5, 2010

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2010/10/04/scotus-set-to-make-first-amendment-history/

As the United States Supreme Court opens its doors for business on this first Monday in October, court watchers are anxiously awaiting oral arguments, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, in the matter of Snyder v. Phelps, 533 F. Supp. 2d 567 (2008) – a case that promises to be the most important matter to come before the court during the 2010-2011 session.

The dispute arises out of a protest march conducted by members of the Westboro Baptist Church outside a church where a funeral was being conducted for Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, a Marine killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

The protesters, led by their ‘eccentric’ pastor, Fred Phelps Sr., carried signs and shouted slogans such as “Semper Fi fags”, “Thank God for dead soldiers”, “Pope in hell,” and “Fag troops” as mourners arrived at the church to attend the funeral. The rant, which was duly permitted and licensed by the city, continued throughout the service, although out of the line of sight of those attending the funeral...

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2010/10/04/scotus-set-to-make-first-amendment-history/
Click to expand...

Dan82 · Oct 5, 2010

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/05/2280378/suit-against-phelps-poses-first.html

Under our First Amendment, there seem few — very few — social lines that cannot be crossed in this country.

Flags can be burned, Nazis can march, profanity be displayed, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Like legal Spandex, free speech is stretched and stretched to cover some ugly things, making many of us uncomfortable in the process.

Waving signs that proclaim “God Hates America” and “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” outside a funeral for a fallen serviceman?

Will this fit, too? Lower courts have disagreed.

So today, the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices will hear Snyder v. Phelps.

“We’re going to court saying there’s a line somewhere,” said Craig Trebilcock, one of the attorneys for the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who died four years ago in Iraq. “A group trying to use a claim of religion, or a claim of some sort of free speech, cannot use it as a club to harass, demean and crush a family.”

Rising from the other table will be the daughter of one of the most controversial — and some argue notorious — men in Kansas history, the Rev. Fred Phelps, pastor of Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church.

“It’s not a First Amendment case, it is the First Amendment case,” Margie Phelps, attorney for Westboro Baptist, said last week. “It’s the ultimate test on whether this republic is real. The point of a republic is to protect from mob rule the dissenting view.”

The church’s dissenting view is that God reviles America for its tolerance of homosexuality and that deaths of military personnel are divine retribution.

And like it or not, she said, her family and their tiny church have the right to say whatever they want on public property.

The case, which has wound its way from a Maryland courtroom through the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, pits free speech against privacy in a society that some would argue has too little of the latter.

“I had one chance to bury Matt and they took it away from me,” said the Marine’s father, Albert Snyder. “For them to say they didn’t disrupt the funeral, they are crazy.”

One of his other attorneys, Sean Summers, will tell the court that the church launched targeted abuse against the father and the family before, during and after the services.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/05/2280378/suit-against-phelps-poses-first.html#ixzz11YH3tQcw
Click to expand...

yourillusion · Oct 6, 2010

I'll be interested to follow this one today. It would be so sweet if they find some legal grounds to push these folks back, like you can't scream fire in a crowd if there is none because it incites public panic. But I just don't know.

Austin · Oct 6, 2010

Someone commented on the actual article and I like their point.

They are using a RIGHT that the United States (which they hate) gives them and protects their hate with. The military theoretically fights to protect those rights. So they protest the funeral of someone who died to give them the right to protest in the first place. Sounds like a double standard they are using the protections of our constitution to protect their hate then.

Also, how free is speech really? Are we allowed to go stand around and yell hateful, racist, sexist, etc slurs at people (are we really? idk if we are lol)? Is calling people names at school not punishable? Is disturbing the peace not a crime? And as yourillusion said, are you allowed to yell "FIRE!" loudly in a public place? Are you allowed to threaten other people? Speech isn't really completely free. And it should NOT be.

This is a hard case though because even though speech isn't really free there should be limits to how far the government can go on restricting it. I don't know whether or not this should be illegal or not... Though I really want the soldier's father to win, I don't know if it would be good. Then, how far can the government restrict our free speech?

Phelps v. Snyder pre arguments thread

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Emberstone
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

yourillusion
Full Member

Austin
Full Member

Phelps v. Snyder pre arguments thread

Thread Tools

Dan82 Full Member

Dan82 Full Member

Dan82 Full Member

Dan82 Full Member

Dan82 Full Member

Emberstone Full Member

Dan82 Full Member

Dan82 Full Member

Dan82 Full Member

Dan82 Full Member

yourillusion Full Member

Austin Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Emberstone
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

Dan82
Full Member

yourillusion
Full Member

Austin
Full Member