Supreme Court makes unsavory verdict to protect citizens' rights
The Supreme Court of the U.S. issued an 8-1 decision Wednesday on a case that has galvanized the public and tested our commitment to protecting freedom of speech.
The case is Snyder v. Phelps, and the decision is as unsurprising as the Westboro Baptist Church is shocking and vile.
In 2006 members of WBC picketed for 30 minutes before the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, a Marine killed in the line of duty. The group contacted local police prior to the protest and abided by all laws and regulations.
Snyder's father sued in 2007 for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. Comment boards on news outlets' websites are bursting at the seams, with many outraged at the new ruling. Some say the ruling is anti-American. Other say it's a liberal decision that doesn't stand up to indecent behavior. Those familiar with the First Amendment or media law will agree, though, the Supreme Court did the most American thing it could by protecting the rights of the protestors.
Over the last century the First Amendment has evolved a great deal, gradually narrowing one case at a time to its current form. Numerous tests have been established, ensuring consistent application of the First Amendment to all cases brought before the Court. Protections for free speech have never been stronger, and the same can be said for the safeguards built into the Amendment to protect against its abuse. If this decision wasn't reversed, it would create a slippery slope allowing for the potential erosion of free speech.
Westboro's ideology is notorious. Its slogans disgust most Americans. Even Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion, "Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly hurtful, and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible."
No violation of local ordinances or federal statutes occurred, and none of the Supreme Court tests could be satisfied for the speech to be unconstitutional. The lawyers and members of Westboro Baptist Church see this as a major victory for their organization, but it is much better to view this as the Supreme Court protecting our right to free speech instead of the group itself. Westboro is only the intermediary for the First Amendment to be brought to the justices again and have it further defined for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
It comes at a great cost of pain for the families of soldiers and all who have heard the rhetoric of the church. It is disgusting and extremely hurtful, but as Roberts stated, "As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
