Supreme Court verdict.
The case before us is a petition filed by Mr. Snyder against Westboro church. The petitioner accuses the church of inflicting emotional stress on him when they publicly demonstrated during his son’s burial. The church concern over the soldiers’ conduct in Afghanistan made them publicly condemn the government and the US soldiers.
In our constitution, freedom of speech protects citizens from intimidation from any individuals or groups as long as they uphold the public interest. The state also allows for protest and demonstration as long as the demonstration the public’s peace is not infringed. When an individual or group is dissatisfied with the state of matter, they are free to air their grievances through protest, demonstration or diplomacy. In all cases above, the public interest must be put first. The congregation from Westboro church had all the right to express them in whatever way they deemed fit. However, the use of derogatory signs against the national flag amounts to felony. The constitution states that whoever intentionally or publicly mutilates, defiles, or cast contempt upon the US flag is guilty of a Class E felony. In this case, flag means anything which is or purports to be the Stars and Stripes, the US Shield, and the US Court of arms, the Wisconsin state flag, or a copy representation of them. The Westboro church used placards, denouncing the state, and held our National Flag during their demonstration. It is worth noting that the picketers never entered the church nor joined the moaners at the cemetery. It also clear that the petitioner, Snyder, never saw what was written on the placards until later in the evening as he watched television. This is an indication that the picketers were without the restricted area. As such, the First Amendment protects the church’s right to protest at such a distance. This is because the statement in the Westboro argument is a matter of public concern.
The petitioner’s emotional change concerning the utterance of the church requires that the petitioners give more evidence to support that fact. We need to verify that the church utterances actually caused emotional distress in the petitioner. Freedom of speech however is limited to public interest and if it is offensive to an individual, then court pursuit is necessary. The case at hand involves one Mr. Snyder who claims that the church tainted his name. Section 18-9-122 (3)’s restriction on speech-related conduct are constitutional. The person offended has the right to be protected from confrontational protests. Also, the constitution restricts some speech that may be considered offensive to the listener.
As for the case of Westboro church and the petitioner, we have determined that that speech by the church concerning the conduct of the US soldiers in Afghanistan is not provably false. The Free Speech Clause of The First Amendment defends the church against the petitioner’s accusation. Therefore the Supreme Court has found the Westboro with no offense against the petitioner. However, we must all respect our National Flag and protect it by all means. The church’s conduct before the public amounts to felony. Their demonstration aimed at reaching as many people as possible. The message they intended to pass to the public was merely an exaggeration of the fact that the soldiers raped women in Afghanistan. I therefore order the church to pay a fine of $ 3000. To the public, it is your sole responsibility to maintain patriotism, defend our national flag uphold the spirit of nationhood.
References
The Supreme Court of the US. (October). Snyder v Phelphs , 1-36.
