Yes, the church group is protected. Even though what the church said was terrible, it was about big topics that affect everyone - like the country's morals, the military, and religion. In America, freedom of speech is a very important right that protects discussions about public topics, even if the ideas are mean or offensive. Because the protesters followed police rules, stayed on public land, and didn't actually mess up the funeral, their speech is protected by law.

No, the church should not be protected. This wasn't a simple protest - it was a cruel and personal attack on a sad father. The judge who disagreed said that freedom of speech shouldn't be a shield for people to hurt private families just to get attention for their cause. He argued this was a targeted attack on one person, not a general debate about public issues.

Yes, the church's speech is protected in this specific situation. This judge agreed with the main decision but said it was a very close call. He noted that we have to balance things - the church's right to speak about public issues against the family's right to be protected from emotional pain. Because the protest was peaceful, far away, and didn't interfere with the funeral service, the church's right to speak won out in this case.

Yes, free speech protects the protesters from getting in trouble because they were talking about issues many people care about, even though their words were very hurtful. The Court said that even though it's important to protect people's feelings, it's even more important to let people express views on public issues, which get extra protection under free speech.

No, free speech shouldn't protect the protesters because their messages targeted the soldier's family in a very personal and hurtful way, beyond just talking about public issues. Alito said the government should be able to protect people from such severe emotional harm. He argued the Court's decision left the government powerless to shield individuals from vicious personal attacks.

Breyer agreed the protesters' speech was protected because it was about public issues, but he wanted to point out the government isn't always powerless to protect people from severe emotional injury. He said the Court decided this case based on specific facts showing the protesters followed the law, their messages couldn't be seen or heard from the funeral itself, and punishing them wouldn't really help protect people from emotional harm.

Yes, free speech protects these protesters from getting in trouble because they were talking about issues many people care about, even though their words were very hurtful. We conclude that even though it is important to protect people's feelings, it is even more important to let people express views on public issues, which receive extra protection under free speech.

I respectfully dissent. No, free speech should not protect these protesters because their messages targeted the soldier's family in a very personal and hurtful way, beyond just talking about public issues. The government should be able to protect people from such severe emotional harm. This decision leaves the government powerless to shield individuals from vicious personal attacks.

I concur that the protesters' speech is protected because it addresses public issues, but I emphasize that the government is not always powerless to protect people from severe emotional injury. We decided this case based on specific facts showing the protesters followed the law, their messages could not be seen or heard from the funeral itself, and punishing them would not really protect people from emotional harm.

"Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, or when it is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."

For example, "speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection."

—explaining how the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment "can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress

—finding that First Amendment shielded members of Westboro Baptist Church from tort liability for its picketing of military funeral, no matter that the speech was disrespectful

So, "where matters of purely private significance are at issue, First Amendment protections are often less rigorous."

The Court reasoned that "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values,[and] is entitled to special protection."

"Although the boundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined....[the US Supreme] Court has said that speech is of public concern when it can `be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,'or when it `is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.'"

There is no question that the speech appellants seek to protect extends to matters of pressing public concern since they raise issues of sexual abuse, accountability for these offenses, and healing for abuse victims.

Code § 623.04, the Court has repeatedly considered regulation of those activities to be based on the manner in which expressive activity occurs, not its content, and held such regulation content neutral.

—explaining that the "captive audience doctrine" has been applied "only sparingly" in a couple of cases concerning content-neutral regulations protecting a person's home, and holding that a father attending his son's funeral was not captive to picketers of the ceremony

Yes. The First Amendment shields the church members from tort liability because their speech, while hurtful, addressed matters of public concern. The Court's reasoning is that speech on public issues is at the heart of the First Amendment and receives special protection. To determine if the speech was of public concern, the court examined its 'content, form, and context.' The content of Westboro's signs related to broad public issues like the moral conduct of the United States, homosexuality in the military, and Catholic clergy scandals. Although the protest's setting was a private funeral, its location on public land and its subject matter meant it was not a purely private matter. The Court found no evidence that Westboro's protest was a contrived personal attack on Snyder, but rather a continuation of their long-standing public advocacy. Because the speech was on a matter of public concern at a public place, it cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or outrageous; doing so would allow a jury to impose liability based on their own subjective tastes, which is an unacceptable risk to free expression.

No. The First Amendment does not provide a license for the 'vicious verbal assault' that occurred in this case. The dissent argues that Westboro's actions were not speech on a matter of public concern, but rather a targeted, personal attack on a private citizen, Albert Snyder, at a time of extreme emotional vulnerability. This attack was central to Westboro's strategy of exploiting private grief to attract media attention. The dissent contends that actionable speech should not be immunized simply because it is interspersed with protected speech on public issues. The location of the protest on a public street should not create a 'free-fire zone' for otherwise actionable verbal attacks that cause severe, lasting emotional injury to innocent victims.

Yes. While agreeing with the majority that the picketing addressed matters of public concern, the analysis cannot stop there because even public-concern picketing can sometimes be regulated. The key is a balancing of interests. In this specific case, Westboro's means of communication—picketing lawfully on public property, out of sight and sound of the funeral itself—must be weighed against the state's interest in protecting citizens from severe emotional harm. Given these facts, upholding tort liability would punish Westboro for its views without proportionately advancing the state's interest. Therefore, the First Amendment protects Westboro's actions, but the holding is narrow and limited to the particular facts of this case.

Yes, the First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case because the speech addressed matters of public concern, was not provably false, and was expressed through hyperbolic rhetoric. The Court reasoned that while the state has an interest in protecting citizens from emotional distress, this interest does not extend to prohibiting speech on public issues, which is entitled to special protection under the First Amendment. The Court emphasized that speech on matters of public concern, even when controversial or hurtful, is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection.

No, the First Amendment should not shield Westboro from tort liability because their speech went beyond commentary on matters of public concern and specifically targeted the Snyder family with messages of a personal nature. Alito argued that the state has a compelling interest in protecting individuals from the severe emotional distress caused by such targeted, harassing speech. He contended that the Court's decision left the state powerless to protect private individuals from emotional assaults, even in the most outrageous circumstances.

While agreeing with the majority that Westboro's speech addressed matters of public concern and was thus protected, Breyer wrote separately to emphasize that the state is not always powerless to protect individuals from severe emotional harm. He noted that the Court's decision was based on a detailed review of the specific facts, which showed that Westboro's picketing was lawful, could not be seen or heard from the funeral ceremony itself, and that upholding tort liability in this case would punish Westboro without proportionately advancing the state's interest in protecting citizens from severe emotional harm.

Yes, the First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case because the speech addressed matters of public concern, was not provably false, and was expressed through hyperbolic rhetoric. We reason that while the state has an interest in protecting citizens from emotional distress, this interest does not extend to prohibiting speech on public issues, which is entitled to special protection under the First Amendment. We emphasize that speech on matters of public concern, even when controversial or hurtful, is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection.

No, the First Amendment should not shield Westboro from tort liability because their speech went beyond commentary on matters of public concern and specifically targeted the Snyder family with messages of a personal nature. I maintain that the state has a compelling interest in protecting individuals from the severe emotional distress caused by such targeted, harassing speech. This decision leaves the state powerless to protect private individuals from emotional assaults, even in the most outrageous circumstances.

Yes, the First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability under these specific facts. While I agree with the majority that Westboro's speech addressed matters of public concern and was thus protected, I write separately to emphasize that the state is not always powerless to protect individuals from severe emotional harm. This decision was based on a detailed review of the specific facts, which showed that Westboro's picketing was lawful, could not be seen or heard from the funeral ceremony itself, and that upholding tort liability in this case would punish Westboro without proportionately advancing the state's interest in protecting citizens from severe emotional harm.

Snyder v. Phelps

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot