SCOTUS: Snyder v. Phelps

The Supreme Court rules today in Snyder v. Phelps. The Westboro Baptist Church can picket at military funerals. The ruling was 8-1 and Roberts wrote the opinion. He ended his decision with:

"Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to con- duct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here— inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

Alito was the dissenting justice. He picks apart at a few details. Snyder was not a public figure, the church has other ways of expressing itself, and some of the signs could reasonably be interpreted as being directed directly at the deceased. From a Hustler v Falwell case there is a tort for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" but it has a very high burden to meet though it can be met by speech alone. Still he says the defendants didn't deny doing so (though they didn't say they did).

I also liked this logic: "But in any event, I fail to see why actionable speech should be immunized simply because it is interspersed with speech that is protected." But I'm not sure about this idea: "funerals are unique events at which special protection against emotional assaults is in order." This doesn't sum up everything he said very well, but it's the best short quote I could find:

"Allowing family members to have a few hours of peace without harassment does not undermine public debate. I would therefore hold that, in this setting, the First Amendment permits a private figure to recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by speech on a matter of private concern."

So the court says the first amendment protects the church's public protests at funerals. I think it also protects my speech: "fuck the Westboro Baptist Church".