Recruit for Hate or Recruit for Country?

The upcoming meeting on Friday, October 14th will be centered around the Snyder vs. Phelps (2011 Westboro Baptist Church Update) Supreme Court case.Snyder v. Phelps centers on the ongoing historical battles over protected and unprotected free speech according to the legal interpretations of the first amendment

The Snyder v. Phelps is an update to a case we discussed last year, in which a group known as the West Boro Baptist Church fought for their right to “free hate speech”. We will begin with a general discussion over Hank William’s Jr. and his comments on President Obama on “Fox and Friends” which subsequently got him fired from his job at ESPN. The information below is important for a successful debate on the Snyder vs. Phelps case.

Click HERE for the full website/source, filled with recordings of arguments, and the briefs for the case. ----------


Facts on the Case: The family of deceased Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed at his funeral. The family accused the church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress for displaying signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops" at Snyder's funeral. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett awarded the family $5 million in damages, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the judgment violated the First Amendment's protections on religious expression. The church members' speech is protected, "notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words."

  Legal Provision: First Amendment Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The Court held that the First Amendment shields those who stage a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability. Justice Stephen J. Breyer filed a concurring opinion in which he wrote that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion in the case, "I do not believe that our First Amendment analysis can stop at that point." Justice Samuel Alito filed a lone dissent, in which he argued: "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."