The ongoing Supreme Court case between Al Snyder and the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is as emotional as it is complex. Because of this, I was frustrated by the Daily's editorial asserting that we should protect the WBC's freedom of speech. It wasn't the opinion of the Daily that disappointed me but rather the simplicity and ignorance of context with which it was asserted.
For those unfamiliar with Snyder v. Phelps, the backstory is as follows: Snyder was burying his son, Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in a Humvee accident while stationed in Iraq. One thousand feet away stood members of the "church," which protests just about everywhere, spreading the message of God's hate for Matthew and his fellow soldiers as well as the entire world. They were carrying signs such as "Thank God for IEDs," "Fags die, God laughs," et cetera; Al Snyder said they also carried the sign "Matt in Hell." In addition, they posted a poem on their website claiming that Snyder and his wife "raised [Matthew] for the devil," taught him "to commit adultery" and that "God killed Matthew so that His servants would have an opportunity to preach His words. …"
Al Snyder, who became violently ill after reading this and watching the coverage of the protest later, filed a lawsuit claiming defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Snyder claims that this is not so much a free speech issue as a harassment issue. This is about deliberately engaging in psychological torture and, as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "exploiting a private family's grief."
The defense for Fred Phelps, whose family makes up the majority of the WBC's congregation, is simply freedom of speech. While one of the standards originally used for judging the case was the offensiveness of the WBC's speech, an appellate court rejected that and rightly so. The speech was obviously as offensive as you could possibly get. So far, the Supreme Court has been concerned with the context in which WBC members spoke. The question is now about whether the protest still qualifies as free speech or becomes harassment of a father in an especially vulnerable state. Where the line is drawn between freedom and abuse is very unclear, considering that protesting 1,000 feet away is not tantamount to yelling fire in a movie theater.
On the one hand, you could legitimately say that the interaction between Snyder and the WBC was too indirect and unforced to be harassment. In response to the funeral protests the church conducted in the 1990s against Matthew Shepard, early AIDS victims and other gay people, about 40 states (including Maryland, where Matthew was buried) passed laws to keep them several hundred yards away from funerals. In this case, the WBC was 1,000 feet away, and Snyder even admitted that he could not see or hear them during the ceremony or on the way. Furthermore, aside from seeing the tips of their signs, the only time he directly saw the protest was on TV after the burial. He had to go on the Internet and click on the website godhatesfags.com in order to see the poem that exploited him and his dead son for media attention. In this case, it then would then amount to a question of free speech, since what they are saying is not forced into Snyder's face. By that argument, they should then be acquitted.
Let's say, for instance, at their protest outside a Justin Bieber concert they were carrying their "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" sign. A widow of a veteran is watching the news and sees the clips of them, including the sign. She could then claim emotional distress on the same grounds that Snyder is, but while it may have been their intent that people see it, "people" does not necessarily include widows, and free speech would most likely win.
On the other hand, while Snyder was rerouted during the funeral procession to limit his view of the picketers as much as possible, the other 1,500 mourners were greeted by the goons as soon as they entered the parking lot. According to Snyder, every aspect of the ceremony was tainted by their presence, even though they were far away. People even came up to him remarking, "Oh, I didn't know Matt was gay." (Though Matt was straight, the church's logic for military protests is that our armed forces defend a country that is doomed for tolerating homosexuality).
Furthermore, because the WBC sent out premeditated press releases titled, "Burial of an Ass," the press was aware that the church would be there, and a media circus ensued outside the funeral. And though the father was not sent the aforementioned poem by the church or forced in any way to see it, it was directly targeted at the Snyders, who are legally private citizens. Because the Internet is public domain, it was accessible to anybody who Googled Matt's name, as the father expectedly did to read remembrances from Matt's military friends.
There are many precedents to the Snyders being afforded extra protections during a sacred ceremony, especially one of mourning. In Phelps-Roper v. Strickland, a case under the U.S. Court of Appeals, the court stated that survivors have a right to privacy "in the character and memory of the deceased." Similarly, the case Jewish War Veterans of the United States v. American Nazi Party determined that the neo-Nazis could not march around synagogues during the High Holy days. The right to privacy is, due to the media circus and the distraction of funeral mourners, undermined in Snyder v. Phelps.
Though I'm starting to side more and more with the latter argument, I'm not entirely sure. If nine of the greatest legal minds in the country are divided on this, it would be presumptuous of a dope like me to pretend there's a definitive answer and that I know it. Despite the fact that this is technically an op-ed, I didn't so much want to state my opinion as to show you both sides and let you decide.
All I'm convinced of is that the deciding factor is how directly the protests interfered with the ceremony. And though the vilest speech is the kind that needs the most protection, Snyder was legitimately helpless in this situation, and his rights need protection, too. Here, the Daily's free speech argument doesn't hold up, because the WBC's message is not being silenced.
The church has countless other platforms, such as outside of concerts, through which its members can spread their message, and yet they choose to do so in the most provocative and exploitative locations. For me, Snyder's right to privacy trumps the freedom of speech card, because the church members seem to have abused that freedom not in what they said, but in where they said it.
--
David Pernick is a sophomore majoring in political science. He can be reached at David.Pernick@tufts.edu.
