Judge Alito and Nate Phelps Got the Supreme Court Ruling Right: the Ruling is Wrong.

[Kurovski]

The Supreme Court got it wrong. The Phelps' clan was conducting a personal attack. Mr. and Mrs. Snyder had every right to sue Westboro, and the Supreme Court denied them a chance at justice.

The following is from Nate Phelps' blog ( Nate is a fallen-away member of the family)...


"...As I'm reading the opinion I keep thinking that something is missing. The Court has, in my opinion, made the same error as the Appellate Court before them. No serious consideration is given to the right of a person to bury a loved one in peace. Then I get to Justice Alito's disenting opinion and there it is.

Justice Roberts makes much of the duty of the Court to consider "the whole record" in determining the nature of the speech and whether it concerns public matters. Buried in the body of his dissenting opinion Justice Alito sheds light on a critical aspect of the Court's thinking.

A part of my family's protest surrounding the death of Matthew Snyder was the online post they made a few days after picketing his funeral. The title of the post was "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. The Visit of Westboro Baptist Church to Help the Inhabitants of Maryland Connect the Dots!" In that nifty little outburst of inscribed drivel the language clearly abandoned "public issues", turning brutishly private and personal in nature:

God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver!...you raised him for the devil. Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew...to divorce, and to commit adultery...They also...taught Matthew to be an idolater.

How could the Court possibly rule that this language concerned a public issue? Well, as Justice Alito explains, they didn't bother. Footnote #15 explains:

The Court refuses to consider the epic because it was not discussed in Snyder's petition for certiorari.

A critical aspect of the case at both the District and Appellete Court level, and the Supreme Court excludes it on a technicality?!? Alito explains the error of that decision:

The epic, however, is not a distinct claim but a piece of evidence that the jury considered in imposing liability for the claims now before this Court. The protest and the epic are parts of a single course of conduct that the jury found to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress. The epic cannot be divorced from the general context of the funeral protest. The Court's strange insistence that the epic "is not properly before us." means that the Court has not actually made "an independent examination of the whole record". And the Court's refusal to consider the epic contrasts sharply with its willingness to take notice of Westboro's protest activities at other times and locations..."


More:

http://n8rphelps.blogspot.com/

[OHdem10]

1. Would the court say the Phelps issue is Gay Rights.and their

belief the Military has gone too far. The Court does
not agree with their crazy ways just their right to do it.

[Kurovski]

2. I don't know what you are saying.

Did you read the post, and maybe the whole blog at the link?

[Kurovski]

4. This is just part of what westboro said to the snyders before attacking at the funeral:

God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver!...you raised him for the devil. Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew...to divorce, and to commit adultery...They also...taught Matthew to be an idolater.

They made it personal, the way a stalker would.

[speltwon]

12. The OP is wrong imo

and fwiw, the appellants didn't even know the Phelps were THERE until they saw the media reports.

[Kurovski]

23. I heard the opposite. (nt)

[speltwon]

27. Did you read the scotus transcript?

I prefer primary sources, not blog articles.

[leftstreet]

3. K&InvisibleR

[Kurovski]

5. It's payback time!

:rofl: i'm reaping the wild wind!

[leftstreet]

6. ...

:rofl:

[Kurovski]

9. I'm gonna go protest straight weddings until I get my civil rights...

only i won't send out the harassing, stalking online notice that Shirley did to the Snyder's. :D

We'll see how great the supreme court is about holding up rights of free speech then. Shit. I could've done Chelsea's shebang. Too late.

[speltwon]

13. The Phelps were over 1000 ft away

so if you do the same, I am sure the SCOTUS will rule the same way

[Kurovski]

24. The first one won't be.

;-) Not until I breed my mighty army! But by that time it will be a moot point.

[Canuckistanian]

7. Yep, that's another way to view it

What IS the difference between freedom of expression and outright personal assaults?

[Kurovski]

11. And shouting "fire" in a theater, and hate speech?

[speltwon]

16. A significant difference

considering that FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theatre was the justification used to prosecute a war protester. And that case was corrected by another. And hate speech is perfectly legal in the US.

[NuclearDem]

18. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal

SCOTUS affirmed the lower court's decision that nothing said by the WBC could be proven false.

[Kurovski]

32. Stalking is illegal.

Or is it?

[NuclearDem]

33. Never argued that it was legal

But stalking played no part in Snyder v Phelps.

[Kurovski]

48. It was personal. the Snyders were attacked on line for being Catholic, among other things.

As it was pointed out in the dissent, Westboro BC had any number of military/government facilities at which to protest. The posting of the online statement by Westboro BC after their protest makes clear the personal nature of the attack.

Westboro BC mixed public policy in with a personal attack on a private citizen and his family.

[NuclearDem]

57. And again...Snyder v Phelps had nothing to do with the online posting

[NuclearDem]

8. Emotional distress is one of the hardest things to deal with in court

I'm not saying the Snyders didn't suffer emotional distress, but we shouldn't be limiting free speech because someone suffers emotional distress as a result. What the WBC says might be disgusting, but by their own statements, the Snyders didn't even know about the protest until they saw coverage of it on TV after the funeral.

They're awful people, but if they're protected, we're protected.

[Kurovski]

10. I don't believe that. After Bush V. Gore, I just don't believe that we're all protected.

Westboro stalked the Snyders and the Snyder's have a right to sue. The SCOTUS took that away from them. That was the end of the issue being "free speech rights" when Shirley researched them, posted private info online and threatened them, and also harassed a religious individual at a religious ceremony, Interfering with right to perform a sacred religious ceremony freely. It was personal, and it was private.

Harrased for HIS, Mr. Snyder's religious beliefs. Shirley says his son is going to hell. His religion says his son is in heaven.

[NuclearDem]

15. Falwell also thought he had a right to sue Hustler over the Campari ad parody

He tried arguing that Hustler was intentionally inflicting emotional distress, but SCOTUS specifically said that restricting that speech would have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression. Because the WBC picketing was driven by concern over public issues, Hustler v Falwell protects them from liability. The Snyder funeral wasn't the first protest they held, and neither was Snyder singled out specifically for the protest because of his religious beliefs, but because Matthew Snyder was killed overseas. Again, by Snyder's own statement, he didn't even know of the protests (actually, the signs' content) until after the ceremony when he saw the coverage on the news. He wasn't directly harassed at the ceremony because he didn't even know they were there.

Snyder sued over the picketing at the ceremony, not over the posting of personal information online. He still has a right to sue in civil court for invasion of privacy in that context.

Hell, if half the things posted on DU about conservative Christians were actually spoken directly to those Christians, we'd be sued with that same logic of your last statement.

[Kurovski]

22. Failwell was a public figure. Period.

I don't know what to say, or where you got your news, because we have conflicting reports. I heard Snyder himself speak about his religious rights.

If someone writes about anyone, public or private citizen, and they stalk them, there are laws for that. anyone can say they are stalking them for public reasons, i guess. I'd rather that stalking laws apply wherever obvious.


I'm not as sure as you that this ruling won't affect other attempts at suing. I think that's all but over with now. But I don't know.

[NuclearDem]

26. I got Snyder's statement directly from the SCOTUS ruling

Again, this case was NOT about stalking--it was always about the picketing, not about the publishing of private information online or anything outside of the protest. The Snyders have the right to sue over invasion of privacy and harassment not related to the protest. The Court said nothing about that. It simply said the Snyders couldn't sue over the protest.

The actual malice standard is still alive and well. It might make suing difficult, but it limits litigation to patently false statements. And again, nothing WBC said could be proven false.

Trust me, as soon as I see SCOTUS restricting the right to harassment litigation...I'll be up in arms just like you. :)

[Kurovski]

34. I just have a headache.

BTW Westboro is still down as of yesterday, and won't be posting anything online for awhile.

[speltwon]

20. They didn't interfere

They were over 1000 ft away, fwiw. There is nothing in the record that the funeral was interfered with. Did you read the actual case record? (I have the PDF link if you need it) or just this poorly written, poorly justified article. The complainants didn't even know the Phelps were THERE until they saw later media reports. The interference angle is silly.

Which "private info" did they post online, for example? There was no invasion of privacy suit here, so I strongly doubt it was "private" in the actionable sense.

[Kurovski]

49. Here...

After the funeral, the Westboro picketers reaffirmed the meaning of their protest. They posted an online account entitled “The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. The Visit of Westboro Baptist Church to Help the Inhabitants of Maryland Connect the Dots!” Id., at 3788. 15 Belying any suggestion that they had simply made general comments about homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and the United States military, the “epic” addressed the Snyder family directly:

“God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver! In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD—PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE—you raised him for the devil.

***

“Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery. They taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity. Every dime they gave the Roman Catholic monster they condemned their own souls. They also, in supporting satanic Catholicism, taught Matthew to be an idolater.

***

“Then after all that they sent him to fight for the United States of Sodom, a filthy country that is in lock step with his evil, wicked, and sinful manner of life, putting him in the cross hairs of a God that is so mad He has smoke coming from his nostrils and fire from his mouth! How dumb was that?” Id., at 3791.

In light of this evidence, it is abundantly clear that respondents, going far beyond commentary on matters of public concern, specifically attacked Matthew Snyder because (1) he was a Catholic and (2) he was a member of the United States military. Both Matthew and petitioner were private figures, 16 and this attack was not speech on a matter of public concern. While commentary on the Catholic Church or the United States military constitutes speech on matters of public concern, speech regarding Matthew Snyder’s purely private conduct does not.

[speltwon]

51. I see no "private information" here in regards to

something that would be civilly actionable as an invasion of privacy. So, that's the first point.

As to the second... I think the author makes an erroneous conclusion because... the assumption is that if the ire/protest references and is directed towards an individual person (in this case Matthew Snyder) that this vitiates the claim that the protest was about a matter of public concern. I disagree (as does the court).

Nobody denies, and its clear in the court record that the Phelps directed their commentary towards an individual... Matthew Snyder. But the underlying "cause" (god forbid in the case of the Phelps) isn't unique by any means to Snyder. Furthermore, it's inarguable from the Phelps' history of public (oh so public) commentary, that the underlying issues are such that they do not limit their commentary to just one (or even a few) individuals regarding it.

If I could make an analogy. Assume that John Smith dies while shooting heroin. Radical anti-heroin Phups clan protests his funeral and talks about his awful behavior in that he used heroin and threw away his life etc. They call him, during the funeral (but staying 1000 yds away pursuant to state law) a vile demonic heroin user, they say he is burning in hell, they say god has punished him, bla bla bla

Same type of thing

[Kurovski]

14. IMO This ruling is the start of the Righ twing Court's assualt on the right to sue.

Corporations have pushed for decades for torte reform, and they are gonna get it big time.

[leftstreet]

19. TORT REFORM !! TORT REFORM !! TORT REFORM !!

FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS !!

MCDONALD'S COFFEE !!


They've been shoving this bullshit propaganda down our faces for decades.
And people eat it up

Our Overlords want the judiciary to benefit THEM, not us proles

:banghead:

[NuclearDem]

21. With that logic, the assault started long ago, back in 1988

And the Rehnquist Court wasn't exactly stacked with conservatives.

[Kurovski]

28. A lot of things started a long time ago. It takes many years to come to fruit

And nuts take even longer.

[NuclearDem]

29. Well...my point is in my other post

I just don't see our right to sue over harassment being taken in the near future. Both Hustler (the one from 1988) and Snyder address issues of public concern, not private harassment.

[Kurovski]

45. "Torte" Yeesh...

Delicious!

[Dappleganger]

17. Agreed, my stance all along has been that this is harassment.

[Kurovski]

25. ...and of the ugliest sort.

They are damaged individuals who use the public at large to act out their trauma.

Now someone hand me a dime, RFN!

[BzaDem]

30. Regardless of whether the court was correct, I definately think legislatures should be able to write

Constitutional laws that limit such protests at funerals.

In the opinion, the court kept saying that the Phelps' adhered to all laws and regulations during their protests, and that to later say what they are doing was illegal (civilly) would impermissible chill speech. If that is correct, it is only correct because of vagueness concerns. (We want the law on free speech to be clear and unambiguous, so speech is not chilled.) There was no law in that case prohibiting such speech at funerals/burials.

If a legislature later creates a reasonable time-place-manner restriction regarding funerals specifically, I would hope the Supreme Court would find such a restriction easily constitutional. There would be no vagueness concern there, and I definitely agree with the OP that the right to free speech should not prevent a grieving loved one from burying their relatives in peace.

[Kurovski]

31. recently Arizona...

Arizona has passed emergency legislation to block protests of the funeral of a 9-year-old girl who was killed in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The state legislature moved swiftly after the infamous Westboro Baptist Church announced it would picket Christina Taylor Green's memorial service, saying God was punishing America for various sins. Westboro, led by Reverend Fred Phelps, frequently protests funerals, for example those killed in wars, and the memorial service for Elizabeth Edwards.

The law is based on a similar one in Ohio, which was found to be constitutional by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Associated Press' Paul Davenport reports. Lawmakers had to tread carefully to avoid trampling on free speech rights, so the measure only forbids picketing within 300 feet of the funeral or burial for an hour before and after the service. (Laws banning protests during the procession have been struck down.) Violators can be charged with a misdemeanor and get six months in jail. Here's how people are reacting to this latest law:



http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/01/arizona-passes-law-to-prevent-funeral-demonstrations/21540/#

[Kurovski]

35. So there was a campaign, DU voted, and nobody won!

I love you guys, DUers. Please forgive me.

Goodnight America!

[Kurovski]

42. And now, Good morning, America!

[Kurovski]

36. I'd like to challenge the idea that "all speech" is supported around here.

And forget all that "protected to the death" stuff.

Putting aside issues like the right to sue.

When the SC ruling came out, there were threads on the issue that waxed righteous and magnanimously and commendably on the issue. I said "okey-dokey", I get it on its face. Then there were more, and yet more redundant threads with people attempting to out-do one another. And that's when the bug crawled up my rear. And yes, that's me.

Just yesterday morning a perfectly "cromulent" thread regarding New Jersey Meathead(R)Chris Christie was quickly protested and shut down, it was a joke that made a point somewhat crudely, not at all hatefully, and rather funny to some. That is not an uncommon occurrence and I understand that. DU has rules about that. Like there are rules in real life about say, harassment. This has to do with what we ourselves say, not DU's rules. (Oh! and what fine rules they are, Dear Mods!) ;-)

I can say: "I'm a gay man who wants to legally marry my partner, and live under the protections that defend our pursuit of happiness as a couple. I also stand with my lesbian sisters, who are likewise punished by our government merely by the proclivities of birth.

I demand our rights as of now."

Well, even that will blow out a few brain cells here at the old DU. Even President Obama either does believe, or has to pretend to believe that Gay marriage is an affront that will, what? Steal him from the lovin' arms of the first lady and his children?

But I can also state the exact same idea in another way...

(see post below, wait for it, wait for it...)

[Kurovski]

37. "I'm a faggot who wants to legally marry my butt-buddy, and live in protected homo-happiness!

I also kick it out for my bulldagger sisters, who also get all kinds of shit because they favor the velvet lady-parts.

I want this shit fixed by five PM TODAY, mother fuckers."

And while an OP like that would probably be deleted soon enough, how many who claim they would defend "hateful" speech rush to defend that thread?

And I struggle with this as well, I'm a hypocrite like most all of the world. Hell, I want the Phelps' to be sent for a court ordered Psych eval, which makes me worse than Stalin, oh yes it does!

[Viking12]

39. So you don't even understand the difference between a private forum and govt action

..and you expect us to take your anti-free speech rants seriously?

[Kurovski]

40. I'm discussing individuals on DU and what they say, not the DU.

it is also based on my ten years observation of DU discussions.

Read again for yourself. I'm not going to give a lesson in reading comprehension.

I shall re-read the post myself to see if I was unclear.

[Viking12]

43. I'm glad to hear you're not giving lessons.

Because you really have no clue. Your fallacious analogy demonstrates this quite clearly.

[Kurovski]

44. It's not fallacious. It's not an analogy.

It's an observation and a comparison.

DUers as individuals crackdown enmasse on many forms of speech.

And enmasse, DUers will also state they "hate" what Westboro does, but feel it should be allowed.

[Kurovski]

53. If I posted to a Catholic Duer : "You are an idolater, you worship a false God,

you support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world."

Would that be a personal attack, per DU rules?

If I said to a DU parent of a service member: "You sent your child to fight for a country that is evil? That God condemns? You're dumb!"

How long would that post stay up? Is it personal in nature?

The nature of the attack by Westboro was personal. Members of the SC chose to overlook that part of the equation. If only there was such an abundance of caution displayed in all of the Supreme Court's decisions...

[Viking12]

54. Posting the same faulty analogy in another form doesn't make it any better than the last time .

You just don't get it do you?

[Kurovski]

56. What, that we disagree? I see Westboro BC as attacking private citizens

in a private manner.

You see it as fully Public, protected free speech. Westboro BC is in their rights to exploit the Snyder's private and religious lives for a public cause.

We disagree. I get it.


EDIT: and I have stated in the past that there is a difference between a govt. entity prohibiting free speech, & private entities doing so.

[myrna minx]

38. Morning sunshine.

:hi:

[Kurovski]

41. I certainly hope you are here to kick-it out for our bulldagger sisters.

:hi:

[Kurovski]

46. By which I mean to say...

Good morning!

[Kurovski]

47. Dissent, in part.

...In this case, respondents implemented the Westboro Baptist Church’s publicity-seeking strategy. Their press release stated that they were going “to picket the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder” because “God Almighty killed Lance Cpl. Snyder. He died in shame, not honor—for a fag nation cursed by God … . Now in Hell—sine die.” Supp. App. in No. 08–1026 (CA4), p. 158a. This announcement guaranteed that Matthew’s funeral would be transformed into a raucous media event and began the wounding process. It is well known that anticipation may heighten the effect of a painful event.

On the day of the funeral, respondents, true to their word, displayed placards that conveyed the message promised in their press release. Signs stating “God Hates You” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” reiterated the message that God had caused Matthew’s death in retribution for his sins. App. to Brief for Appellants in No. 08–1026 (CA4), pp. 3787, 3788 (hereinafter App.). Others, stating “You’re Going to Hell” and “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” conveyed the message that Matthew was “in Hell—sine die.” Id., at 3783.

Even if those who attended the funeral were not alerted in advance about respondents’ intentions, the meaning of these signs would not have been missed. Since respondents chose to stage their protest at Matthew Snyder’s funeral and not at any of the other countless available venues, a reasonable person would have assumed that there was a connection between the messages on the placards and the deceased. Moreover, since a church funeral is an event that naturally brings to mind thoughts about the afterlife, some of respondents’ signs— e.g ., “God Hates You,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” and “You’re Going to Hell”—would have likely been interpreted as referring to God’s judgment of the deceased.

Other signs would most naturally have been understood as suggesting—falsely—that Matthew was gay. Homosexuality was the theme of many of the signs. There were signs reading “God Hates Fags,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “Fags Doom Nations,” and “Fag Troops.” Id. , at 3781–3787. Another placard depicted two men engaging in anal intercourse. A reasonable bystander seeing those signs would have likely concluded that they were meant to suggest that the deceased was a homosexual.

After the funeral, the Westboro picketers reaffirmed the meaning of their protest. They posted an online account entitled “The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. The Visit of Westboro Baptist Church to Help the Inhabitants of Maryland Connect the Dots!” Id., at 3788. 15 Belying any suggestion that they had simply made general comments about homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and the United States military, the “epic” addressed the Snyder family directly:

“God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver! In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD—PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE—you raised him for the devil.

****snip****

In light of this evidence, it is abundantly clear that respondents, going far beyond commentary on matters of public concern, specifically attacked Matthew Snyder because (1) he was a Catholic and (2) he was a member of the United States military. Both Matthew and petitioner were private figures, 16 and this attack was not speech on a matter of public concern. While commentary on the Catholic Church or the United States military constitutes speech on matters of public concern, speech regarding Matthew Snyder’s purely private conduct does not.

Justice Breyer provides an apt analogy to a case in which the First Amendment would permit recovery in tort for a verbal attack:

“Suppose that A were physically to assault B, knowing that the assault (being newsworthy) would provide A with an opportunity to transmit to the public his views on a matter of public concern. The constitutionally protected nature of the end would not shield A’s use of unlawful, unprotected means. And in some circumstances the use of certain words as means would be similarly unprotected.” Ante , at 1 (concurring opinion).

This captures what respondents did in this case. Indeed, this is the strategy that they have routinely employed—and that they will now continue to employ—inflicting severe and lasting emotional injury on an ever growing list of innocent victims.

IV

The Court concludes that respondents’ speech was protected by the First Amendment for essentially three reasons, but none is sound.

First—and most important—the Court finds that “the overall thrust and dominant theme of demonstration spoke to” broad public issues. Ante, at 8. As I have attempted to show, this portrayal is quite inaccurate; respondents’ attack on Matthew was of central importance. But in any event, I fail to see why actionable speech should be immunized simply because it is interspersed with speech that is protected. The First Amendment allows recovery for defamatory statements that are interspersed with nondefamatory statements on matters of public concern, and there is no good reason why respondents’ attack on Matthew Snyder and his family should be treated differently.

Full dissent here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZD.html

[Bucky]

50. Just have to disagree. Free speech will be obnoxious, even beyond obnoxious. But still...

still it's necessary for a free society. The funeral protesters are vile people who are abusing their rights to free expression and free assembly. I loathe them, but they're entirely allowed to say what they believe in the way they believe is appropriate. I think the laws can be tweaked to protect the families better, but you can't stop someone from speaking his vile hateful peace in a truly free society.

[Kurovski]

55. We do disagree. I see it as a well-designed and expertly executed personal attack

on the deceased and his parents. Westboro could take the personal element out of it, but they know that's what buys them the publicity. The personal attacks are the element built into the public speech.

Yes, constitutional laws will have to protect against the personal attack element as best they can.

And that's just about it.



“God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver! In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD—PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE—you raised him for the devil.

* * *
“Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery. They taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity. Every dime they gave the Roman Catholic monster they condemned their own souls. They also, in supporting satanic Catholicism, taught Matthew to be an idolater.

* * *

“Then after all that they sent him to fight for the United States of Sodom, a filthy country that is in lock step with his evil, wicked, and sinful manner of life, putting him in the cross hairs of a God that is so mad He has smoke coming from his nostrils and fire from his mouth! How dumb was that?” Id., at 3791.

[Shagbark Hickory]

52. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. nt