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
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
"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. …