Supreme Court: Can Westboro Baptist Church Protest Military Funerals?

Article excerpt

Supreme Court to hear free speech case pitting a bereaved father against the Westboro Baptist Church, which held an antigay protest near the funeral of his son, a marine killed in Iraq.

The US Supreme Court is set to hear a high-stakes battle over free speech on Wednesday in an appeal filed by the father of a US Marine killed in Iraq who claims his son's funeral in 2006 was disrupted and ruined by an antigay protest.

Albert Snyder had won a $5 million jury verdict against the Rev. Fred Phelps and members of his Westboro Baptist Church for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violating the sanctity of the funeral of his son, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. But the judgment was later reversed by a federal appeals court panel that ruled that despite the offensive nature of the protests conducted by the Westboro members, their activities were protected by the First Amendment.

Mr. Phelps is well-known nationally for his fire-and-brimstone opposition to homosexuality. Since 2005, he and members of his Topeka, Kansas-based church have organized protests at military funerals of service members who are not gay in an effort to attract public attention to their cause.

The group believes that God hates homosexuality and is punishing America for its growing acceptance of gay rights by killing US troops overseas.

Family members and others at military funerals have complained about the protests. But Phelps and his supporters insist they have a constitutional right to carry their message to the people at the funerals.

"Snyder had one (and only one) opportunity to bury his son and that occasion has been tarnished forever," wrote Mr. Snyder's lawyer, Sean Summers of York, Pa., in his petition urging the high court to take up the case. "Snyder deserved better. Matthew deserved better. A civilized society deserved better."

The appeals court that reversed the jury verdict did not disagree with that point. But the appeals court said despite the "distasteful and repugnant nature of the words being challenged," Phelps had a First Amendment right to speak on public issues, even when the speech was highly offensive.

The panel quoted a fellow appeals court judge: "Judges defending the Constitution must sometimes share [their] foxhole with scoundrels of every sort, but to abandon the post because of the poor company is to sell freedom cheaply."

The opinion continues: "It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. …

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.