Snyder v, Phelps: Evolution of The First Amendment in the U. S - Case Study Example

Snyder v, Phelps Introduction The First Amendment is an establishment clause that commands the government through the congress against a legislation that approves any particular one religion for the state. The prohibition ascertains that the public utilities such as schools remain neutral grounds for students from all faiths. Further, the public facilities shall accommodate even those individuals who do not subscribe to any religious group or the atheists. Consequently, students from all backgrounds with varied religious beliefs find an opportunity to study in an environment free from discriminative, sectarianism and theological considerations. In addition, First amendment also prohibits the government from reducing in scope the freedom of speech, freedom of press or people’s right to assemble peacefully and formally request the government to listen to their grievances. Evolution of The First Amendment in the U. S First Amendment has had an evolution over time in the American history. The evolution first started with the new American settlers who had the desire to institute democracy and freedom. To eradicate history of tyranny, the new settlers included a bill of rights in the constitution, which contained the First Amendment. The bill of rights had procedural and essential guarantees of individual freedoms and boundaries on control and intervention of the government. In 1978, Sedition Act was signed by John Adams who was the by then President of America. The act empowered the federal authorities to prosecute any person suspected to be plotting anything against the government. In addition, it prohibited malicious writing on the president and the congress. The 1978 Sedition Act received criticism for chocking legal discussions about politics from several quarters. However, the government punished such critics while others gave in to its pressure (Waite 56). In 1800, the Act became obsolete and its renewal did not materialize because it was inconsistent with The First Amendment. The First Amendment suffered during 1600 to 1800, a period marked with slavery, when many states taking part in slavery banned public distribution of abolitionists’ pamphlets as well as texts and speeches. State defense disregarded The First Amendment protections and ended up settling on its undefined wording instead of Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment only gives the federal government authority to amend it, not the congress. Congress cleared up this disagreement by ratifying The Fourteenth Amendment making the first amendment binding beneath federal level upon the government in 1865. The Fourteenth Amendment came up with constitutional adjustments to heal post civil war circumstances. Protecting the laws against violation by the government was a great achievement by The Fourteenth Amendment besides defining citizenship. Consequently, imposition of censorship of anti- Union newspaper and speech standards hindrance had a guaranteed protection by the provisions of The First Amendment. However, President Abraham Lincoln during his tenure and the civil war declared that freedoms and protections of First Amendment were secondary to preserving the nation. In 1918, the congress passed another Sediction Act that prohibited disloyalty and use of abusive language to the flag. Before the Sedition Act of 1918, congress also passed the Espionage Act of 1917. Espionage Act criminalized writing or saying things that may lead to polarization or encourage disloyalty besides interfering with servicemen drafting. Espionage act further caused hindrance to protections of the First Amendment (Waite 61). The state went ahead to remove any book that was radically supporting political or social revolution from the shelves of stores and library. Consequently, the state instituted a Federal Censorship Board to monitor the success of the Espionage Act as well as maintaining and protecting interest of national security. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began a policy of commanding owners of broadcast stations airing matters that are controversial to extend airtime to opposing opinions. FCC defended its move by arguing that it was not violating The First Amendment right of broadcasters. FCC maintained that it had to protect airwave because it was a limited resource belonging to the public. Practice of Fairness Doctrine was casted off in 1987. During World War II, advocating for overthrowing government violently became an illegal consideration at any level. Writing anything that could cause military insubordination or encouraging disloyalty also attracted heavy punishment from the state. After World War II, McCarthy era considered censorship position that is ideal for rapid change while targeting communism. The Red Scare scrutinized writings and speeches as well as other activities to ensure they are free from leftist advocacy and communist propaganda. Eventually, state eradicated censoring activities and restored finally restored the First Amendment. Facts on Decisions Reached in Westboro’s Baptist Church Supreme Court Case Supreme Court determined that although the speech of Westboro Baptist church coincided with Mathew Snyder’s funeral, the speech did not disrupt the funeral. The judges also understood that picketers obeyed the police directives and decided not to disrupt the funeral service, not to walk to Maryland church compound where the memorial service proceedings took place. Moreover, the Westboro Baptist church did not go to the cemetery as earlier directed. Supreme Court defended Westboro on the account of First Amendment that guaranteed public and religious groups the freedom of speech and expression. Jury found that demonstration by the church was outrageous and inflicted additional pain to an already aggrieved Snyder. However, what Westboro church chose to say enjoyed the protection of the First Amendment, which over-rides state law when it comes to right to speech. Court further clarifies that the state must tolerate outrageous and insulting speeches to provide efficient environment for the First Amendment protection. Westboro Baptist church held its speech in a public place addressing a matter of public concern. As a result, the court could not hold the picketers liable for causing insults and outrageousness to an already aggrieved Snyder. Proximity and Freedom of Speech Proximity of picketing is a factor concerning freedom of speech. Westboro Baptist church under Phelps intentionally chose to stage demonstrations in a public land near Maryland Catholic church (Robbins 1). The memorial service was at Maryland Catholic. Phelps, therefore, wanted their intentions painfully known to not only the bereaved family and their close relatives and friend, but to the present media as well. There are several Catholic churches across America but they chose Maryland Catholic church specifically to ensure that they captured the attention of the intended audience. Indeed, even Snyder saw the picketers’ posters as he drove to the funeral. Position in Snyder Vs Phelps Court Reasoning I consent to and support the court’s decision for defending the protection of freedom of speech as contained in the First Amendment. First Amendment provides an atmosphere conducive for expressing issues of public concern that threaten to erode the societal morality. Gay marriage has become the norm of most American societies and the public is endorsing it without fear or future considerations. The jury, therefore, should take a firm stand towards curbing such activities that promote moral decadence. However, it is important that the state at some point take steps to regulate picketing especially when it is affecting privacy of an individual. A close analysis at Phelps demonstration during Mathew Snyder’s funeral went outrageous, insulting, and causing pain to the aggrieved family (LII 1). The words used like going to hell and God’s punishment during a funeral service were too harsh to the bereaved family as evident in Snyder’s court proceedings. The First Amendment protection should only apply when addressing issues of public concern without interfering with individual’s privacy. Speech in Phelsps demonstration not only caused distress and infliction to Snyder, but also harmed his privacy just like an assault. Westboro Baptist church violated decency to use utterly intolerable and cruel words that Snyder could not endure. First Amendment should not therefore leave the state powerless to protect individuals against intrusion. Conclusion Freedom of speech can be invaluable when addressing issues of public concern. The freedom gives everyone liberty to air their opinion about social vices in the society in public area. Parties involved raises and discusses them without any limitation or harassment by the government of anyone. Phelps and his Westboro church expressed their views freely without interference of the police. Freedom of speech also protects those expressing their views from attracting huge charges from the courts of law. First Amendment that protects freedom of speech helps those accused of expressing controversial issues from legal charges if found culpable of insults and injuring individual’s conscience. That is the reason why Phelps escaped the court fines on their utterances that insulted Snyder. However, limitations should be provided to ensure that freedom of speech does not increase animosity and hatred in the society as caused between Westboro Baptist church and Snyders, Catholic church and the entire department of Defense. Works Cited Waite C. The Digital Evolution of An American Identity. California: Routledge, 2013. Legal Information Institute (LII). Supreme Court of the United States: Albert Snyder, Petitioner V. Fred W. Phelps, Sr., et al. Web. 2011. Accessed November 7, 2014 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZD.html Robbins, Harriet. “Snyder Vs. Phelps: Supreme Court Protects Hateful Speech Near Funeral”. United Press International. Web. 2011. Accessed October 6, 2014 from: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/06/-Snyder-vs-Phelps-Supreme-Court-protects-hateful-speech-near-funeral/UPI-58271299402300/ Read More