WUmester event: Snyder v. Phelps
This talk was about court cases related to the First Amendment and their appeals to the underlying constitutional principles behind other cases in history. In 2011, Topeka's own Phelps family put this First Amendment to the test. Again. Here's what happened:
The Phelps family and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the military funeral of Matt Snyder, who died in the Iraq War. Matt's father was unaware of this until he saw the evening news. If you live in Topeka, you already know what kind of signs the Phelps's hold up and what kind of reactions they provoke. Mr. Snyder filed a suit against them for intentionally causing emotional distress, however, the Phelps's know how to cover their asses. They were at least 1000 feet away, not within visibility of the church, no explicit mention of Matt's name, etc. etc...
This is the case cited in the Snyder v. Phelps case: New York Times v. Sullivan produced the "actual malice standard" which determined that actually intended falsehoods spoken against a public figure are not constitutionally protected as free speech. A police department supervisor, L.B. Sullivan accused the New York Times of libel for reporting a few inaccurate details in an article defending peaceful protesters in the civil rights movement. He sued the Times, despite the article never mentioning his name, because he thought it made him look bad. and the police look bad. (The article DOES report threats and violence against Dr. King and others, but that stuff really happened.) It went to the Supreme Court, and the New York Times won.
And in the case of Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court ruled that the outrageous signs were protected public speech.
What's frustrating to me is that underlying our Constitution seems to be an assumption of human decency. Isn't it written for an American people with common goals and who care about the welfare of the country and the citizens in it? It was noted in the lecture that the Supreme Court is doing a better job protecting the First Amendment than it has in years, but at what cost? Does freedom of speech infringe on other rights people have or deserve to have?
Perhaps this is so tricky because there are so many types and categories of speech, and language evolves with society and culture. Because of this instability and flexibility of language plus our ever-ready First Amendment, I think it is possible to get any message across, it's just a matter of how you say it.
The Phelps family and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the military funeral of Matt Snyder, who died in the Iraq War. Matt's father was unaware of this until he saw the evening news. If you live in Topeka, you already know what kind of signs the Phelps's hold up and what kind of reactions they provoke. Mr. Snyder filed a suit against them for intentionally causing emotional distress, however, the Phelps's know how to cover their asses. They were at least 1000 feet away, not within visibility of the church, no explicit mention of Matt's name, etc. etc...
This is the case cited in the Snyder v. Phelps case: New York Times v. Sullivan produced the "actual malice standard" which determined that actually intended falsehoods spoken against a public figure are not constitutionally protected as free speech. A police department supervisor, L.B. Sullivan accused the New York Times of libel for reporting a few inaccurate details in an article defending peaceful protesters in the civil rights movement. He sued the Times, despite the article never mentioning his name, because he thought it made him look bad. and the police look bad. (The article DOES report threats and violence against Dr. King and others, but that stuff really happened.) It went to the Supreme Court, and the New York Times won.
And in the case of Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court ruled that the outrageous signs were protected public speech.
What's frustrating to me is that underlying our Constitution seems to be an assumption of human decency. Isn't it written for an American people with common goals and who care about the welfare of the country and the citizens in it? It was noted in the lecture that the Supreme Court is doing a better job protecting the First Amendment than it has in years, but at what cost? Does freedom of speech infringe on other rights people have or deserve to have?
Perhaps this is so tricky because there are so many types and categories of speech, and language evolves with society and culture. Because of this instability and flexibility of language plus our ever-ready First Amendment, I think it is possible to get any message across, it's just a matter of how you say it.
Comments
Post a Comment