Opinion

Previewing Phelps v. Snyder

Photo of Sam Singer
Sam Singer
Contributor
  • See All Articles
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      Sam Singer

      Samuel Singer is a recent graduate of Emory Law School and a Chicago-based attorney. His commentaries on law and politics have appeared in various publications, including The Beachwood Reporter and Culturekiosque.com. He has also reported and written articles for The Chicago Tribune and Market News International.

On Wednesday, the father of a dead Marine will ask the Supreme Court to uphold a multi-million dollar verdict against members of the church congregation that picketed his son’s funeral.  The congregation, lead by its pastor, the militantly homophobic Fred Phelps, persuaded a federal court of appeals that its message was hyperbole and that the First Amendment bars the lawsuit.  Albert Snyder, the bereaved father, contends that the First Amendment does not protect speech aimed at private individuals and designed to cause emotional distress.

Constitutional scholars have predicted that Snyder will find a skeptical audience in the Roberts Court.  The Court, they observe, regularly sides with free-speech advocates in close First Amendment cases.  The paramount example from last term is the Citizens United campaign-finance case.  Less momentous but perhaps more relevant to Snyder’s petition is United States v. Stevens, in which an eight-justice majority struck down a federal prohibition on the sale of “crush videos,” a bizarre genre of film that glorifies the killing of small animals, usually by women in stilettos.  Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts cautioned against carving out discrete categories of speech as unfit for constitutional protection.

Snyder and his lawyers reject any attempt to characterize Phelps’s conduct as hyperbole.  They insist that there is something uniquely vicious about his message and the way he voices it.  While some bigots are content to wallow in their own prejudice, Phelps wants America to hate gays with his same fervor, so he links homosexuality to the one issue certain to weigh on the American psyche — military fatalities.  In his view, God kills U.S. soldiers to punish America for tolerating homosexuality.  Foul as that proposition is, it takes on a crueler dimension with Phelps’s contention that God’s smiting of our soldiers is a good thing, because otherwise America will never awake to the fact that it has institutionalized sin.  Phelps and his congregation have been on the road with this message for years, and it is this message that Phelps brought to the Snyder funeral, emblazoned on signs with signature slogans — “God hates fags”; “Thank God for dead soldiers — and others — “Semper Fi fags”; “You’re going to hell” — evidently targeted at the subject of the funeral, lance corporal Matthew Snyder.

Snyder’s appeal rests on a legal distinction between speech directed at the public and speech targeted at private individuals.  Acknowledging that the First Amendment preserves its strongest safeguards for matters of public concern, Snyder contends that Phelps directs his message at captive and vulnerable audiences, in this case a family burying the dead.  Phelps retorts that the public/private distinction is irrelevant, and that the First Amendment protects any speech which one cannot reasonably interpret as stating actual fact.  His defense thus lies in the sheer absurdity of his statements: in his view, so long as his speech is too outrageous to be deemed defamatory, that is, so long as it cannot reasonably be construed as asserting something factual, the law is indifferent toward who’s listening and where.

  • Newly Minted

    Perhaps the Court will allow the element of time to enter into the first amendment rights of the Phelps-creeps. They could say that they have the right to speak their bile but not during the short and very limited time of the fallen soldier’s funeral.

    It also seems to be a matter of a public noise nuisance. Their noise disturbs the funeral like my neighbor’s party disturbed my sleep last week.

  • johno413

    I doubt that even the most politically motivated religious leader wants to be associated with Phelps and his band of loons. Even though the Christian Right is feeling left out of the discussion this election cycle, I’m betting most realize the longer term harm should they get involved with this case. And if anyone thinks more mainstream groups and their leaders have an overall positive view of Phelps, you haven’t been paying attention.

    • Newly Minted

      Christians are mad at Phelps even even more than everyone else. We’re mad at the way he treats the families, as everyone else is, but we’re also mad at him for the way he perverts the message of Christ. In short, we’re twice as mad at him. It’s a visceral kind of anger. Believe me, I’ve been around Christians when he and his family are shouting. The anger that Christians feel is palpable.

  • gooners

    Phelps’s message is the the same message we hear from the leaders of the Christian Rght. The only difference is the venue he chooses. I wouldn’t be surprised to see friend of the court submissions from Christian leaders arguing for Phelps. Do you think they want to see their bread and butter arguments like “God punishes America for tolerating gays” ruled “uniquely viscous”? No way this is upheld.