Westboro Baptist Church Court Case Analysis

Ben Lehman Comm 492 IRAC Exercise Paper (Snyder v. Phelps) Step IIn this case, the plaintiff is Albert Snyder. He is the father of a recently killed Marine, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. The defendant is Fred W. Phelps Sr.

He is a pastor and leader of the Westboro Baptist Church based in Topeka, KS. The church has been known to express its beliefs that "God hates America" through protests and demonstrations at military funerals across the country. In their history they have been at close to 600 funerals. Snyder's funeral was set to be held in his hometown of Westminster, VA.

When Phelps learned of the time he gathered a group of church members comprised of his own family and went to demonstrate at Snyder's funeral. The proper authorities were notified that the protest was taking place, and it was in a public place adjacent to a public street. It was also located very close to the church where Matthew Snyder's funeral was being held and the route his funeral procession would take. There was no excessive demonstrating by the members of Westboro church nor did they ever go onto the property of the church where the funeral was.

Albert Snyder only noticed the demonstrators but not their message when he passed in the procession. He saw what their signs said later on the news. Snyder took Phelps to court in front of a jury and won on 3 of 5 claims. Phelps would now take this decision to the court of appeals arguing that his demonstration was protected speech under the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the District Court's ruling and agreed, reversing the first of the three claims won by Snyder.

Then, instead of ruling on the decisions of the other two claims separately, they grouped them together with the first and reversed the whole group.They decided that since damages could not be recovered for one claim, they could not be recovered for any of them. Upon review the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the original jury decision. They decided that even though Westboro's speech was intended to target Snyder's funeral, and though it caused pain to others, it was of a public concern in public space and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Step IIThere were five tort laws brought into question in this case.Albert Snyder claimed all of the following: defamation, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.

Snyder did not have enough proof of the first two claims and a summary judgment gave those to Westboro. In Maryland, in order to win a claim of  intentional infliction of emotional distress "a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. The law for intrusion upon seclusion states that the defendant must be "one who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. " There are many parts to this which all must be present to be awarded a claim. There must be a reasonable expectation of privacy for the plaintiff.Then he must prove that the defendant had intentionally sought out the matter which was intruded upon, and performed an act that is objectionable to a reasonable person which causes physical or mental pain.

Civil conspiracy refers to a collusion between parties to commit an illegal act or an act that causes harm or distress to another person or persons. The damage must be a direct result of the act performed, and all co-conspirators must have agreed upon the plan to commit the act. All people involved with the planning and carrying out of the plan assume liability.Step IIIAll of the claims in this case were grouped together and ruled on as one instead of separately.

The court said that the First Amendment Rule applies as a defense against the state tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. This precedent was set in the Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell. The court needed to decide whether or not the speech was of public concern.

Speech of public concern is entitled to special protection under the First Amendment and is on the highest rung of protection.This is to ensure that public debate and self expression are preserved and remain "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. " When an issue is of private matters then it is given much less protection. It is true that it is difficult to define exactly what public concern is. It has been covered in a broad term that can be narrowed down in individual circumstances.

For speech to be defined as public concern it must "be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. It also can be defined as when the speech "is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public. " All factors of the speech must be determined and reviewed before a decision is made. The court must consider the content, form, and context of the speech. This includes examining what was said and how it was said.

This is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis because of the varying nature and severity of speech. Once all aspects are covered, the court can determine if the speech meets the criteria for public or private concern.In this particular case, the content of the signs displayed by the Westboro church is directly related to a public issue. The ideas they are conveying are of interest to society. The speech was intended to reach as wide of an audience as it possibly could.

This is the context and it was not intended to be directed at Matthew Snyder. Phelps was just using the funeral as a place to have exposure to a larger audience. The funeral taking place does not make it a private matter because the demonstration took place on public land by a public street.The court also said that since the Westboro church had been putting its beliefs on display at military funerals and other high-profile events for over 50 years it could not be considered a personal attack on Matthew Snyder. The court also acknowledges that the legal definition of emotional distress does not accurately describe the pain caused to the plaintiff, but since the speech was done within the boundaries of the law it cannot be stripped of its special protection. This is not a totally open and shut book, however.

The government can regulate demonstrations just like the one Westboro Baptist had. In fact, the state of Maryland has a new law restricting protests at military funerals. This is able to be done because protected speech is still subject to time, place, and manner restrictions. The court says that the members of the church simply had a right to be doing what they were doing where they were doing it.

The fact that they checked with authorities and then followed by staying within the boundaries set up by those authorities gave them the right to be there.Also considered in the ruling was that the demonstration never became disorderly or out of control. Texas v. Johnson states that ""if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

" This was referenced to show that as long as the matter is of public concern it cannot be silenced just because the nature of it affects someone negatively.One of the main reasons the original court's jury ruled in favor of Snyder was because they were instructed to only take into account the "outrageousness" of the speech. This, however, is a term that is very difficult to define and far too subjective to be a sole determining factor in whether speech is protected or not. All of these reasons went into the court deciding to set aside the original jury's ruling and affirm the Appeals Court's decision and award Albert Snyder none of his claims.Justice Breyer concurred with the decision made by the court citing the fact that the speech was of public concern. Justice Alito dissented with the court's ruling saying that this was a personal attack on a someone who was not a public person during a private matter.

While the court gives three main reasons that the speech is protected, it admits that they are not very strong reasons on which to base a ruling. The most important reason, which kept coming up, is that the overall theme of the speech spoke to a very broad and public audience not just one private group of people.The second reason is that there was clearly no previous grudge being held with the Snyder family. The Westboro Baptist Church has been carrying out demonstrations like this one for many years conveying basically the same message.

The third and arguably least important reason is that the protestors had a right to be where they were because it was a public place. This is the strategy that the Westboro church uses to stay in the public eye and also within the laws to keep their protests going.