Summary of the Facts
The congregation at Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, used to picket at military funerals as protestation to tolerance of homosexuals within the ranks. One such funeral was Lance Corporal Snyder’s, during which the congregants displayed picket signs with messages such as ‘Thank God for Dead Soldiers”. The church had notified the authorities beforehand of its intention to picket and acted in compliance with instructions given by the police.
During the funeral, Snyder’s father, Albert Snyder, could see the picket signs but not the message on them. He only became aware of these messages after seeing them on the news. The father sued Phelps and Westboro claiming that their picketing caused him emotional distress. On the other hand, Phelps used the First Amendment’s freedom of speech as his defense for his actions.
Discussion of the Court’s Decision
The decision by the Supreme Court was largely dependent on establishing whether the picketing was over an issue of private or public concern; the First Amendment only covers the latter. The court established that the church was speaking on a topic of public significance and thus believed that “the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” I concur with this ruling, especially because Albert Snyder could not establish any proof that the picketing was directed as a personal attack towards him, his son, or family. This case highlights that regardless of an issue being of public significance, there are specific individuals affected by it; therefore, limiting debate on such a topic to protect these people would be misused to impede on free speech.
Fighting Words Doctrine
The Fighting Words doctrine states that a person who writes or speaks words that are to incite immediate violence or confrontation from his or her target can be held accountable according to the definition of this credo. This dogma is a limitation to the freedom of speech and is protected by the First Amendment. The doctrine was established in the case of Chaplinsky Vs New Hampshire (1942).
The plaintiff, Walter, was a Jehovah witness who was issuing pamphlets on public roads, and was also calling a group of organized religion 'racket.' This behavior caused a lot of commotion in the streets and the police took Walter to the police station. Upon seeing the town marshal, Chaplinsky verbally attacked him by calling him a ‘good damn racketeer and fascist’. He was charged for intentionally offensive speech; in his defense, he said the law was vague on the matter and that his First Amendment Right was been infringed. The court unanimously upheld his arrest after which Justice Frank Murphy stated that there are different classes of words, but words uttered to incite violence, injury or breach peace are seen as 'fighting words.'
In the case of Synder Vs Phelps, the fighting words credo could not apply because an outrageous speech about a public issue cannot be viewed as a tort of emotional distress. The public issue here was about homosexuality in the military and in the country. Tasteless, salacious and rude speech that disrupts a person's performance, name calling, and obscenity words do not constitute fighting words. In this case, several issues merged, Justice Kagan brought out that privacy should be respected for the family's deceased and that posting in the internet about someone's death does not make them a public figure. Justice Alito seconded this latter point, where he added public figures are not the only ones who are provoked by fighting words. The deciding judge, Justice Scalia, concluded by saying the fighting words dogma is usually misinterpreted for such words are subjective. Every person has his or her own opinion on what words can make him or her become immediately violent or breach peace. Outrageous or angering words can be seen as fighting words, but if they are concerning a public issue that is widely discussed then such words will not be considered as such. Therefore, Phelps Baptist Church could not be held accountable for emotional distress to Synder despite the words being atrocious, for homosexuality is a public discussed issue.
References
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
Mannheimer, M. J., The Fighting Words Doctrine, Columbia Law Review (1993), 93(6), 1527-1571.
