Westboro Baptist Church - First Amendment

Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church are back in the news this week. The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case against them from the father of a deceased soldier whose funeral was picketed. Westboro Baptist Church is known for protesting at high profile funerals.

After they waved their “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead troops” placards outside the funeral for Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder (who was not gay; the church merely contends that deaths of American soldiers overseas is God’s punishment for American toleration of homosexuality), the deceased soldier’s father Albert Snyder sued the church in federal court for invading his privacy and inflicting emotional distress. A jury in Baltimore awarded Mr. Snyder $11 million in damages in 2007, which a judge reduced to $5 million, but last September the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the verdict, saying the church’s protest was constitutionally protected free speech. The court also ruled that Snyder had to pay $16,510 for part of the church’s court costs.

Are Westboro Baptist Church's protests protected under the 1st amendment? Should the court make an exception in cases where the protest has nothing to do with the actual event?

Shaun Hautly:

With this case, let me begin by attacking this church: The cliche phrase by which Christianity is known, is "WWJD." What Would Jesus Do? Jesus wouldn't stage a protest at a funeral. Have some respect for the dead, eh? Someone died while serving our country, died protecting us, and you've got the gall to NOT go to war in the first place (I'm assuming our veterans would have had nothing to do with this), and then be completely heartless when someone who is brave enough loses their life. If you didn't believe that Jesus rose from the grave, you better believe that he's rolling over in it right now.

All this really boils down to homosexuality, though. It's not really about the troops. It's not about churches. It's about homosexuality. Sure you can find bible passages which support homophobia, but you can also find a lot of other stuff which has since been deemed 'out of date.' You get to pick and choose which ones to embrace, and which ones to hide behind. I understand that. However, there are only two sides to homosexuality: Not for vs against, not born vs choice, not civil unions vs marriage. There is only "I grew up with homosexuals" and "I didn't grow up with homosexuals." Slice this church up (or any other anti-gay group) and take a look inside. They come from places and schools where people didn't come out. Where homosexuals were tormented for their lifestyle and ostracized. That's who's protesting.

Right to free speech was created so that people could protest their government, that the government could not openly rule the media. The people who wrote that escaped from a King that dictated his country. A king who also forced his religion on the people and on the translation of the bible. So it was a good idea to put in a few blanket statements which would prevent something like that from happening again. Freedom of speech was not created to give people permission to be buttholes in public. The KKK, Sexists, homophobes, and any other prejudiced opinion (look it up, I mean it literally) cause much more trouble with their hateful picketing of funerals than soldier lives saved with the 'goodness' of their bigoted message.

Nikki Lorenzini:

This story greatly angers me. Greatly! I'm going to save everyone my rant of "Why would Christians do something like this, aren't we supposed to love everyone and not judge them?" From reading another article on this, in this case, technically, they did have the "right" to do this, since they did contact the law enforcement before hand, and only stood about 100 yards away from the actual funeral. But my real question is: what were their intentions?

I am sure that they knew full well that they were going to tick some people off. I am sure that they knew that they were going to get some type of media attention. I am sure that they knew of the probable outcomes of what they were going to do before hand. I am also sure that they did not care. Their actions show that they did not care when this pastor, who has children of his own, protest at someone's child's funeral. Yes, when someone dies, it is always hard. But to have to bury your own child? I can't even imagine the heartbreak.

I understand that the church doesn't agree with homosexuality, and I understand them wanting to take a stand about it. But there is a time, there is a place, and there is a correct way to show how you feel. How would they feel if atheists got a permit from their law enforcement, stood 100 yards away, and protested at one of their funerals? I'm sure they would get their panties in a bunch. Not saying that Snyder has his in a bunch, he is angered and rightfully so.

Yes, the church did the protest the "right way." However, we should think of start taking it to the next step, and before we start issuing permits, we should start thinking a few steps a head, and ask: "What type of outcome will this create."

David Loftus:

I don’t know anybody -- I can’t even imagine meeting anyone -- who doesn’t think the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are crazy, disrespectful, and (assuming it’s acceptable for an atheist to make such a judgment) downright un-Christian loons. It would be tempting to believe they’re indulging in performance art -- a form of ultimate irony or satire, perhaps, as if they were the fundamentalist flip side of the provocative gay activist group ACT-UP -- if they hadn’t been at it for so long (since at least 2001), and at such great expense. Now they’ve managed the amazing trick of making me (and most other liberal Americans) a temporary ally of Bill O’Reilly!

Nevertheless, it’s a mistake to try to use the courts to shut down the obnoxious Westboro Baptist Church protesters. Despicable and odious as their message may be, the church should continue to enjoy First Amendment protection. The facts are established that Westboro contacted the local police before their protest, they stayed on designated public land 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was held, and they did not disrupt the service (which shows the church is crazy like a fox: founder Fred W. Phelps, Sr. is a retired lawyer, disbarred long ago for harassing a court reporter, and his spear-carrying daughter Margie Jean Phelps is also a lawyer who will argue the case before the Supreme Court). Albert Snyder never saw them that day, but with all that advance warning, a team of motorcyclists called the Patriot Guard Riders came to the funeral to pay their respects and to shield the family from the protesters. There was also a SWAT team inside the church to make sure there was no trouble. Snyder knew of the protesters’ presence on that day but did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son’s wake. Snyder and his former wife “raised Matthew for the devil, taught Matthew to defy his creator and commit adultery and taught him to be an idolater,” a church press release declared, helpfully.

Strictly speaking, Snyder has no chance to get a ruling in his favor on the main issue: his original charge against the church of defamation was thrown out by a lower court, which said their assertions are so outlandish that no one would believe them anyway, so there was no harm. All that is being argued now is whether Snyder should have to pay the church’s other $96,740.21 in district court costs -- for expert witnesses, miscellaneous costs, court reporter, etc. -- which technically speaking, Snyder could be held responsible for because he brought a groundless case against the church which it had to defend. His lawyers are challenging the reasonableness of the larger tab. Attorney Nathan Tucker, in an opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun on March 22, suggested the First Amendment applies to protection of private citizens’ speech from government control, but that this is a matter of dispute between two private parties, so free speech protection shouldn’t apply; the church should be held liable for slander.

Perhaps that might work. But I don’t want a good cause to lead to bad legal precedent. The First Amendment exists to protect the speech of people you disagree with, not those you like; otherwise, what good is it? It seems to me the court could have ruled in favor of the church’s First Amendment rights without awarding it any court costs, though. If the Westboro Baptist Church wants to trample on people’s emotions at the most vulnerable time of their lives, they can pay their own way.