The case styled Snyder v. Phelps will be argued tomorrow morning in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Snyder is Albert Snyder, the grieving York County, Pennsylvania father of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, who was killed in Iraq while wearing our nation’s uniform on March 3, 2006. At the time of his death, Lance Cpl. Snyder was 20 years old.
Phelps is Fred Phelps, the 80-year-old "pastor" of a hate-enthused "church" in Topeka, Kansas that has made its name by raising reprehensible banners and signs at military funerals (and other venues) throughout the United States.
Phelps’ disgraceful band of lunatics (his "church" consists primarily of members of his very large family) held up revolting signs near the church where Matthew Snyder’s funeral was held: St. John’s Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland.
Among these were signs that said:
"America is Doomed," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "Pope in Hell," "Fag Troops," "Semper Fi Fags," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Don’t Pray for the USA," "Thank God for IEDs," "Priests Rape Boys," and "God Hates Fags."
Following Lance Cpl. Snyder's funeral, one of Mr. Phelps’ "children" posted an ugly message on the Internet, in which she said, among other things, that "Albert Snyder and his ex- wife 'taught Matthew to defy his creator,'" "raised him for the devil," and "taught him that God was a liar."
Though Mr. Snyder (thankfully) did not see the horrific signs hoisted by this degenerate band at the time of his son’s funeral, he did hear about them, and through an internet search, also learned about the disgraceful post of Mr. Phelps’ grown daughter. In June 2006, he filed a lawsuit against Phelps, alleging defamation, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.
For a more detailed discussion of the early parts of the case, read the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit here: .pdf
Defamation – "libel" in the vernacular – requires, under American law, that the aggrieved party (the "plaintiff") establish that the statement was one of fact, that is was false, that it was directed at the plaintiff (as opposed to a group or someone who is unidentifiable) and that it was published (by sign or otherwise) with either negligence (the person "publishing" it didn’t bother to inquire) or "reckless disregard" (the person publishing it knew it was false, or was pretty sure it could be false, but published it anyway). (The term "actual malice," which is also used in libel cases, has not much to do with whether the speaker despised the person about whom he/she was speaking, but instead whether the speaker knew or should have known that his or her speech was false, and published it anyway. It’s been a confusing term from the time it was first announced.) (To succeed in a defamation case, the person bringing the case – the plaintiff – also needs to prove harm to his or her reputation.)
The defamation part of the case brought by Mr. Snyder was thrown out during the trial, as was the "publicity given to private life," because the court determined that the story of Matthew Snyder’s death had appeared in the local newspapers.
Nevertheless, on October 31, 2007, the jury found for Mr. Snyder on the (remaining) three tort claims, and awarded him $2.9 million in compensatory damages and a total of $8 million in punitive damages.
Phelps and his minions appealed the verdict and the decision. They argued, primarily, that the judgment contravened the First Amendment. They were successful in their appeal.
Mr. Snyder’s appeal of that decision will be heard tomorrow morning in the Supreme Court of the United States.
As much as I loathe and despise their speech (and all that they stand for) and as much as my heart breaks for Mr. Snyder, I hope (and believe) that the Court will rule in favor of the horrible Westboro Church.
It is no secret here at Daily Kos that I support our military. As I have written in so many diaries, my beloved Dad and both of my grandfathers (and countless members of my family dating back to the Revolutionary War) were military men. I have been a diarist for the IGTNT series since 2007. And I also am a proud and fervent supporter of our GLTB brothers and sisters.
But my beliefs with regard to these two issues (and the people behind him) are not the point here.
What this case is about is whether the First Amendment provides protection for despicable speech.
I believe both that it does and that it should.
In the 1980s, Hustler Magazine posted a parody of a then-popular advertisement for Campari, in which various celebrities had discussed their "first-time." All of the real Campari ads ended with the celebrity’s discussion of his or her "first time" drinking Campari. Not so much with the Hustler parody, which featured Jerry Falwell discussing his "first time" with his mother in an out-house.
Mr. Falwell sued for both defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The former claim was thrown out, the latter claim reached the Supreme Court, which held, in an 8-0 opinion authored by then Chief Justice Rehnquist, that: "We conclude that public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of publications such as the one here at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with 'actual malice,' i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. This is not merely a 'blind application' of the New York Times standard, see Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 390 (1967), it reflects our considered judgment that such a standard is necessary to give adequate "breathing space" to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment."
Hear the oral argument here.
Hear the announcement of the decision of the Court here.
Read the decision of the Court here.
Translation for non-lawyers: You cannot bring a case for emotional distress based on ugly speech unless you can prove that the speech ALSO contained a provably false fact that was published with knowledge of its falsity.
If the First Amendment means anything, it means that even Fred Phelps and his band of haters have the right to hold up signs, when they do so, as they did in this particular case, in compliance with local laws.
And it means the even people we so respect, and whose broken hearts we embrace, people like Albert Snyder, for whom I pray tonight, should not be allowed to overcome these basic rights on the basis of the extraordinary hurt of hateful words.
A closing thought:
The words of Rep. John Lewis (D-GA):
"It was the First Amendment that made the march on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery, the freedom ride(s) possible, the sit-ins. The protests were all expression of the right to dissent."
John Lewis,
U.S. representative, D-GA (2008)
It still does.
And that's the point.