Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church followers believed that God punishes U.S.A for its tolerance on homosexuality especially in the military. To show their beliefs, Phelps and his followers used to show up at military funerals to protest against such acts. One of the military funerals they showed up in belonged to Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, the son to Albert Snyder (Court, 2011). They caused controversy by showing up at the funeral displaying signs such as “Thank God for dead soldiers,” “God hates the U.S.A” among many others to pass their message. At first Albert Snyder was not aware of the information portrayed until he saw the story of funeral on the news. After understanding their intentions, Snyder decided to sue Phelps and the
…show more content…
If the comments relate to matters of public concern, then Phelps and his followers are not guilty of the actions because they are protected under the free speech clause of the First Amendment (Fasoro & Haddock, 2009). The Supreme Court ruled that the issues presented by the church related to the public, thus, they were right to air their views. The court further argued that the expressions made were not meant for private significance. The court further stated that the speech made by Phelps and his followers related to social and political matters that affect society. To determine that the speech was a reaction to public concern, the court examined the content, form, and the context in which the speech was made. The court later argued that none of these factors have an effect on the outcome of the case. All the components of the speech must be considered including what was said, how it was said, and where and when it was said to in order come up with a final …show more content…
To some extent, Phelps and his church members were a little harsh on Snyder. Their efforts were commendable, but doing it in his son’s funeral was way beyond the line (Court, 2011). Military personnel are also grown up people and very few of them are forced into homosexuality. With some states in America agreeing to gay rights and marriages, it is safe to say that it is within the rights of military officials to indulge in whatever they like. The Supreme Court’s final verdict was that a speech held on a public sidewalk concerning public issues should not be treated as an emotional distress tort. That should not be the case even if the speech is offensive. However, Justice Alito the dissenting judge to this case had his own ideas. He stated that the public were allowed to express their freedom of speech, but not to use it in brutalizing way like they did to Snyder. Even though, Phelps and his followers were right to express their feelings, they crossed the line with their quotes and signs they
If the comments relate to matters of public concern, then Phelps and his followers are not guilty of the actions because they are protected under the free speech clause of the First Amendment (Fasoro & Haddock, 2009). The Supreme Court ruled that the issues presented by the church related to the public, thus, they were right to air their views. The court further argued that the expressions made were not meant for private significance. The court further stated that the speech made by Phelps and his followers related to social and political matters that affect society. To determine that the speech was a reaction to public concern, the court examined the content, form, and the context in which the speech was made. The court later argued that none of these factors have an effect on the outcome of the case. All the components of the speech must be considered including what was said, how it was said, and where and when it was said to in order come up with a final …show more content…
To some extent, Phelps and his church members were a little harsh on Snyder. Their efforts were commendable, but doing it in his son’s funeral was way beyond the line (Court, 2011). Military personnel are also grown up people and very few of them are forced into homosexuality. With some states in America agreeing to gay rights and marriages, it is safe to say that it is within the rights of military officials to indulge in whatever they like. The Supreme Court’s final verdict was that a speech held on a public sidewalk concerning public issues should not be treated as an emotional distress tort. That should not be the case even if the speech is offensive. However, Justice Alito the dissenting judge to this case had his own ideas. He stated that the public were allowed to express their freedom of speech, but not to use it in brutalizing way like they did to Snyder. Even though, Phelps and his followers were right to express their feelings, they crossed the line with their quotes and signs they