Westboro Baptist Church or Current Controversial Topic - Essay Example

?Free Speech and the Westboro Baptist Church Outline I. Intro: Matthew Snyder’ death and funeral II. Background: The WBC III. Arguments A. Snyder family response: civil court case B. The WBC’s use of court cases, U.S. Supreme Court case C. Other responses IV. Solutions A. More effective ways to combat the WBC’s picketing activities B. Counter-protests V. Conclusion Free Speech and the Westboro Baptist Church Matthew Snyder, a U.S. Marine corporal, died in service to his country in a non-combat-related vehicle accident in Iraq in March 2006. Later that month, members of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) picketed Snyder’s funeral, carrying signs with statements such as “God hates fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” WBC’s intrusion on the funeral traumatized Snyder’s father Albert Snyder so much that it made him “sick to his stomach” (“Father,” n.p.), affected his sleep, and haunted his thoughts surrounding his son and his funeral. Later, in his testimony during the court case about the WBC’s deplorable actions—actions that should be stopped by community action and by legislation—Snyder stated, “"They turned this funeral into a media circus and they wanted to hurt my family. They wanted their message heard and they didn't care who they stepped over. My son should have been buried with dignity, not with a bunch of clowns outside” (“Father” n.p.). The Westboro Baptist Church, located in Topeka, Kansas, has been protesting at funerals since 1991. As of 2009, they claim to have participated in over 41,000 protests in over 650 cities, and spend an average of $250,000 a year on picketing. They travel all over the U.S. to picket the funerals of anyone associated with gay people. For example, they picketed at the 1998 funeral of murder victim Matthew Shepherd and the 2010 funeral of Elizabeth Edwards because she supported gay people (Borger n.p.). The WBC also protests at funerals of slain military personnel like Snyder’s. Why would the WBC participate in such activities—activities that even Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly calls “evil and despicable” (Cohen n.p.)? The WBC, headed by pastor Fred Phelps and made up almost entirely of his large family, believe that deaths like Snyder’s are God’s punishment for our country’s growing acceptance of homosexuality. They picket at funerals to express their views, and to get the word out about their opposition to gay rights, the Catholic Church, Jews, and other topics. They believe that anyone who is opposed to their way of seeing things is going to hell, and they feel compelled to make sure that people know this. Several weeks after Matthew Snyder’s funeral, for example, the WBC denounced Snyder’s family for raising their son Catholic. There have been many responses to their actions. One of these is through the courts, which is what the Snyder family did. Later in 2007, they sued Fred Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, and two of Phelps’ daughters on several legal grounds, including defamation and invasion of privacy. The suit claimed that Phelps’ religious views did not expose the Snyders to public hatred or scorn. The WBC’s main defense, in addition to exercising their constitutional right to free speech and free assembly, was that they had complied with all local ordinances regarding picketing and had obeyed all police instructions. The picket occurred 1000 feet from the funeral site, in a location cordoned off by the police, and could neither be seen or heard by the funeral participants. The judge, in his instructions to the jury, said that they needed to decide “whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection” (Donaldson-Evans n.p.). This is the crux of the argument against the WBC, and perhaps explains the outcome of the case: the jury awarded Albert Snyder almost $3 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress. In 2009, the WBC appealed the decision with the Fourth Circuit of Appeals, which set aside the initial judgment, stating the original jury had erred in basing their decision on whether or not the speech in question was free speech. The Court ruled that the speech being exercised by the WBC, including their protest signs and language used on their website, was a form of protected speech because it was “rhetorical hyperbole and figurative expressions, rather than assertions of actual fact” (Donaldson-Evans). The Court also ordered the Snyders to pay the defendants’ court costs. The case was taken to the Supreme Court in March 2010, which upheld the Fourth Circuit for the same reasons, in an 8-1 decision. The Supreme Court’s stated majority opinion summarizes the position supporting the WBC. They ruled that the WBC’s statements, in the context of how and where they chose to say them, is entitled to “special protection” under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, and that this protection cannot be overcome by a jury ruling that the picketing and the speech associated with it was outrageous. The court also ruled that Matthew Snyder’s memorial service was not disturbed, and that his family’s exposure to the WBC’s negative speech was not coerced. This is the crux of the argument supporting the WBC’s rights to picket funerals because not only is their speech protected, they broke no local ordinances while picketing. As a result, as distasteful as most of us find their speech, they have exercised their rights to free speech and to lawful assembly, rights protected under the Constitution. The dissenting view in opposition to the WBC was expressed by Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenting justice in this case, and by the jury of the original case against the Phelps and the WBC. Alito essentially chose privacy over free speech. He also believed that the WBC picketers deprived the Snyder family’s “elementary right” (Sherman n.p.) to bury Matthew Snyder in peace, and should not be covered by the First Amendment. Alito also stated that the WBC had plenty of other avenues to express their beliefs. He ended his published opinion by saying, “It does not follow, however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate” (Sherman n.p.). This case and others like it demonstrate that the courts are not the appropriate place to fight against the deplorable and outrageous actions of Fred Phelps, his family, and the Westboro Baptist Church. They have lost few very of the suits brought against them. It is clear that their speech is indeed protected and that they break no laws when they picket funerals like Matthew Snyder’s. It is unfortunate that the Constitution gives them the right to do so. As a matter of fact, the attempts to stop their behavior, or at least punish them, through the courts backfire. The Fourth Circuit ordered the Snyder family to pay the WBC’s court costs, and it was upheld by the Supreme Court. It is likely that instead of soliciting direct donations, the WBC funds much of its activities with fees awarded to them through court cases. The U.S. military, for example, claims that the WBC uses “written and inflammatory language…to elicit desired responses” (Belzman n.p.), and then files civil suits to reach a settlement that funds their future activities. The Phelps family is clearly adept at using the courts to continue their agenda. Fred Phelps was a successful civil rights lawyer before he was disbarred for unethical behavior, and most of his adult children are lawyers who use their skills to benefit the WBC. One of the most distasteful facts about the WBC is that their status as a church provides them with tax-free status. Most of the court cases that fund their efforts have been won by the city of Topeka, which means that they enjoy, as a reporter in Slate puts it, “subsidized hate” (Lowder n.p.). Topeka has tried to block the WBC’s efforts by passing laws that make picketing funerals illegal, but even that has not worked; the WBC has successfully sued the city for impugning upon their rights and have won hundreds of thousands of dollars in court fees. In other words, the WBC has used the freedom of speech and the best courts in the world to continue their cause and to spread their message of hate and intolerance. There are other more effective ways to fight the WBC. They seek out opportunities to attract attention, so one of the most effective ways to stop them is to not provide them with that attention. This is difficult for most of their victims; their behavior demands some kind of response. Since it is unlikely that the WBC will stop picketing funerals, and that it is even more unlikely that people simply ignore them, the important thing is to protect the families of their victims. Several cities around the nation have responded by passing ordinances that limit the picketing of funerals, which have had limited success. Another effective technique is counter-protests, as long as they are not illegal, do not prevent the WBC’s legal rights to freedom of speech and assembly, and do not attract attention to them. It is unfortunate that the Westboro Baptist Church is able to defame the memory of so many young men and women, like Matthew Snyder, who have given their lives to the service and defense of their country. It cannot be denied that the freedoms we enjoy in America allow them to do so, in spite of their distasteful messages that most reasonable people agree are hateful and deplorable. The WBC may be able to continue, but it is possible to decrease their effectiveness, with legislation passed by local governments and with counter-protests. It is clear that the courts are not the place to stop their actions, but that other ways need to be found to end their funding. More creative ways need to be found to hurt the Phelps family and the WBC where it would hurt them the most—in their pocketbooks, and make it less profitable for them to continue picketing at funerals. Works Cited Belzman, Josh. “Behind Their Hate, a Constitutional Debate. MSNBC.com, 24 January 2008. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12071434/ns/us_news-life. 6 May 2011. Borger, Julian. “Anti-gay Church Hounds Military Funerals.” Guardian.co.uk, 18 April 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/18/usa.gayrights. 5 May 2011. Cohen, Rick. “Students Support Targets to Oppose Westboro Baptists.” The Non-profit Quarterly, 2010 November 1. Retrieved from http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6871:students-support-targets-to-oppose-westboro-baptists&catid=155:nonprofit-newswire&Itemid=986. 5 May 2011. Donaldson-Evans, Catherine. “Father of Marine Killed in Iraq Sues Church for Cheering Death, Appeals to Public Online for Help.” Fox News.com, 26 October 2007. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305279,00.html. 5 May 2011. “Father: Funeral Protest Made Him Sick.” Evening Sun.com, 25 October 2007. Retrieved from http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_7277523. 5 May 2011. Lowder, Mark. “Subsidized Hate: Why the Westboro Baptist Church Remains Tax Exempt.” Slate,com, 4 March 2011. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/id/2287335. 6 May 2011. Sherman, Mark. “Alito is Court’s Lonely Voice on First Amendment.” The York Daily Record.com, 2 March 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ydr.com/ci_17521013?IADID=Search-www.ydr.com-www.ydr.com. 6 May 2011. Read More