Snyder v. Phelps - Assignment Example

Snyder versus Phelps Snyder versus Phelps Parties in court tussle interpret and perceive verdicts differently. Bhakhama (2012) highlights that Snyder versus Phelps, 09-751 stirred intense debates whether Westboros comments and signs reflected public apprehensions, and the relevance of the actions to provisions of Free Speech Clause. The work provides a brief summary of the verdict by analyzing facts that led to the final decision. The origin of the case is Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church followers’ argument that God dislikes America for its leniency on homosexuality especially in military.

Therefore, the congregation picketed in military funerals to demonstrate their beliefs. On this occasion, Phelps led his flock to picket at Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder’s funeral. He died while in battle in Iraq in 2006. Through the event, protesters displayed placards with thematic messages like, acknowledging God for 9/11 event, thanking God for the death of the soldier and asking the public not to pray for America. Furthermore, church members recounted Bible verses and resonated hymns.

Snyder later sued Phelps and the church on the basis that their actions caused him severe emotional distress. However, Phelps defended and sought protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.Bhakhama (2012) affirms that the case took an interesting twist as jury in Maryland settled the claims and awarded Snyder a reasonable compensation. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision in favor of the church because the protestors addressed Americans fate, homosexuality, and moral conduct.

In justification of the decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that First Amendment offered exceptional shield for speech on civic issues. Hence, the court maintained that Westboro Baptist Church members who picketed adjacent to the funeral site expressed legal acts. Thus, the demonstrators’ engaged in accordance with provisions of state-law. On the contrary, the church never committed purposeful cause of emotional misery, meddling, and civil intrigue.Fighting word doctrineFighting words doctrine comprised of speeches with a possibility to make a recipient commit an act of violence.

However, First Amendment never prohibits expression of similar speeches especially when addressing common concerns, yet opposes subset of abusive words and violence. Thus, this is a personal analysis and thoughts about application of the doctrine in relation Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire.Generally, the Supreme Court’s verdict presented a major dilemma. Critics still argue that demonstrators specifically aimed at Snyder’s son and warranted fair judgment. In addition, the Court acted in prejudice because Phelps and the church interposed with speech about contemporary issue in the society to enhance publicity of Westboros (WBC) opinions.

However, Snyder acted within the law to sue Phelps and the Westboros (WBC) for deliberate infliction of emotional pain upon him. District court’s decision further affirmed that WBC invaded Snyder’s private life. In turn, the Jury first ruled in the favor of Snyder. However, an appeal caused the reversal. Accordingly, WBC speech addressed real issues in the society, yet also infringed on Snyder’s freedom. Conversely, considerations of the broader picture evidently show that the Supreme Court offered a convincing verdict.

The issues are above individual gain as Snyder claimed. In support of the verdict, the content of WBC’s signs about the state of the society aimed to convey the speech to a wider audience. Even though some of the messages like “you are destined for Hell” appeared like direct attack to the fallen soldier and immediate family, the overall theme of the demonstration never changed. Thereby, the court made the right decision in regards to the presented judgment. ReferencesBakhama, M 2012, Building Picket Fences: Maryland’s Funeral Picketing Law after Snyder v.

Phelps’s, Maryland Law Review, 71, 4, pp. 1231-1257, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 November 2014.