A Time to Grieve or Protest

Last week for US Supreme Court heard Snyder v. Westboro Baptist Church, 09-751, a case which pits a family’s rights to bury their son with respect and dignity against Constitutional rights. The Court must determine if protesters, who turned a funeral into a media circus and attacked the family on their website, can avoid liability for their actions by claiming protection under the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

Al Snyder, father of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, had only one opportunity to bury his son who died in Iraq while serving his country. Al Snyder was denied the opportunity to do so with dignity and honor. Over four years ago, members of a fundamentalist church in Kansas picketed Matthew's funeral bearing signs with anti-gay and anti-Catholic messages. Rev. Fred Phelps and his followers picket military funerals because they believe that United States troop deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. In this case, they used the Snyders' grief to finally obtain their goal - national media attention. Some of the slogans on the banners said “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Thank God for 9/11.”

Al Snyder sued the church for emotional distress. He won 11 Million Dollars, which the court reduced to 5 Million. The church appealed the verdict arguing that the First Amendment protected its actions. The Federal Court in Richmond reversed the judgment on First Amendment grounds. In response to the protest at Matthew Snyder's funeral, 48 states passed laws restricting funeral protests. The fate of those laws also hangs on the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Last week's case addresses what the First Amendment protects. The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's a fundamental principle of American law. As a writer and lawyer, I value the right to speak my mind and advocate for, at times, unpopular views or changes in the law. But should First Amendment rights be protected in all circumstances? The answer is no. Certain speech is not protected. And speech aimed at individuals rather “public figures” is protected to a lesser degree.

The questions before the Supreme Court then are:

(1)Should free speech be protected in this case at the cost of Mathew’s family’s dignity?
(2) What are the larger implications of restricting free speech?


The Justices appeared troubled by the case. Demonstrating personal sentiment usually, and necessarily, left behind before stepping on the bench, they suggested they would like to rule for the Snyders but were unsure they could. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief." The Court seemed equally troubled by the fact that upholding the First Amendment in this context would leave the Synder with no remedy for the emotional harm the church caused.

The Court should issue its opinion before the term ends in June. And it’s likely that the First Amendment will be upheld and the Snyders will be left without a remedy. Protesters will be allowed to picket private funerals.

Is the law?

Yes.

Is it justice?

Well, I'll let you decide.

To those of us who've never lost a child it is hard to imagine the pain, and harder still for those who have suffered that loss to explain those feelings. Adding to this ache by having a group of angry protesters tell you that your child died because God is punishing the United States’ tolerance for homosexuality only unnecessarily adds to this anguish. I suspect if the funeral had been for one of the protester’s children, Rev. Phelps wouldn't have wanted his band of devotees there either.

Free speech should be protected. It should also be exercised with discretion. And a grieving family should be allowed to mourn in private and with dignity.