Snyder Vs Phelps Speech Analysis
The United States prides itself on the freedoms that are afforded to each of its citizens. Among those freedoms is the first amendment freedom of speech. However, that freedom is often called into question. For instance, the Snyder v. Phelps case. In the Snyder v. Phelps case, Albert Snyder who is the father of Matthew A. Snyder, argues how the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) picketed his son’s funeral asserting offensive statements due to his Albert Snyder’s homosexuality. Moreover, Snyder filed a lawsuit against the WBC “for defamation, intrusion, upon seclusion, infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy” (“Snyder v. Phelps” Wikipedia). The speech discussed in the Snyder v. Phelps case deserves the protection of the first amendment.
From their view, the WBC organization was only discussing their general ideas of homosexuality and not necessarily insulting the Snyder family. The reason why …show more content…
In Deana Pollard Sacks article, “Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court’s Speech,” the author claims that The Fourth Circuit asserted that these two speech phrases are the ones protected under the first amendment. Again, this concludes that the WBC and picketers had the right to display placards about homosexuality against the Snyder’s family and that it was legal. The Supreme Court later decided to rule in favor for the Phelps in a 8-1 vote. However, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the court’s decision stating: “[the] WBC should not have received First Amendment protection for intentionally launching a vicious verbal attack on a private individual” and “the speech was specifically aimed at Snyder’s son” (“Snyder v. Phelps” Case Brief
From their view, the WBC organization was only discussing their general ideas of homosexuality and not necessarily insulting the Snyder family. The reason why …show more content…
In Deana Pollard Sacks article, “Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court’s Speech,” the author claims that The Fourth Circuit asserted that these two speech phrases are the ones protected under the first amendment. Again, this concludes that the WBC and picketers had the right to display placards about homosexuality against the Snyder’s family and that it was legal. The Supreme Court later decided to rule in favor for the Phelps in a 8-1 vote. However, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the court’s decision stating: “[the] WBC should not have received First Amendment protection for intentionally launching a vicious verbal attack on a private individual” and “the speech was specifically aimed at Snyder’s son” (“Snyder v. Phelps” Case Brief