Westboro Baptist Church Case Study

Recently the Ohio State University refused to rent campus space to white nationalist Richard Spencer so he could speak. While this is understandable considering the message that Spencer has been known to preach, the Ohio State University has been accused of denying Richard Spencer his first amendment right. An attorney for Ohio State told Spencer that while the University valued freedom of speech, the speach would cause a serious threat to public safety. Spencer’s response was a lawsuit against Ohio State University. Spencer had sued several other schools in the past as they wouldn’t allow him to speak and it appears that he has now sued Ohio State.

In this brief, it was explained that the Snyder family wanted to have a private funeral for their lost son, and when the Westboro Baptist Church heard about the funeral, they made plans to travel all the way from their base in Topeka, Kansas, to Westminster, Maryland, to protest at Lance Cpl. Snyder’s funeral. When the funeral took place, the Westboro Baptist Church was said to have turned the entire event into an inconsiderate display of hatred. They lined the streets of the funeral procession with signs that read such things as, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates You,” and “Priests Rape Boys.” The latter sign was seen as an attack on the Snyder family’s religion, Catholicism.

The articles "Freedom of Speech: Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City" and "Freedom of Religion: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association" both engage in conflicts pertaining to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

In the R.A.V v. City of St. Paul case, a white teenager was arrested for burning a cross in the lawn of the only black family in the neighborhood. According to the state, this was in violation of a 1989 city ordinance making it a crime to place on public or public property a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse "anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, and gender." In this case, a higher court decided that R.A.V’s first amendments were violated because the state was punishing expression. The ordinance didn’t simply make burning a cross illegal, but instead made the expression associated with this act illegal, which the court considered a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Snyder V. Phelps is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of a public concern, on the public street, cannot be the basis of liability for an “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” even during circumstances when the speech is viewed or interpreted as “offensive” or “outrageous”. At the Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps and his followers believed that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly within the military. “To demonstrate their belief Phelps and his followers often picket at military funerals.” [Copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps and http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-snyder-v-phelps. Be careful not to plagiarize.

The case was about Albert Snyder’s claim that Fred W. Phelps’ hateful picketing at his son’s funeral was unconstitutional. The landmark court case, Snyder v. Phelps illustrates that freedom of speech of any kind is protected by the first amendment, even if it is deemed offensive. “Fred Phelps founded the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, in 1955” ("SNYDER v. PHELPS."). The church is infamous for it’s hateful strikes against the United

The argument that has arisen due to the “St. Cloud Superman,” John Fillah, is quite unfortunate. Fillah was documented to have been wielding an offensive flag, but with only the intent of instilling patriotism and pride (Farhat). This flag toting may be considered hurtful, upsetting even, but that doesn’t mean that his right to free speech should be taken away. Free speech should protect the rights to someone displaying a flag, or any symbol that certain races, religions, genders, or people in general may find offensive. I will present the First Amendment, how Fillah’s intent should play into this, and how ignoring him may be the best course of action.

Phelps (2011) in regards to what kind of speech should be protected under the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. While it is understandable that people are entitled to the freedom of speech, even with a buffer zone enabled, but I found compelling is in the content and impact the case permitted in the aftermath. Freedom of speech? Or fighting words? The United States has reviewed similar cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988); the exception is the issue of the picket signs held by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, while protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier as a matter of public concern regarding whether or not to cause emotional distress to a grieving family as a matter of a debate, but an 8-1 ruling ensured that even hateful speech was protected. I find it hard to believe that there was little to nothing SCOTUS would list as a constituting a compromise for both sides and how the majority claimed that Snyder’s right to privacy was not infringed upon—with only Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting, claiming that “in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.” As such, the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case led to a vulnerability in similar civil liberties: what

One Thursday night, I ventured out to into the warm early autumn night. I headed to a local hospital, where I knew there was Al-Anon meetings held once every two weeks. I believed that this would be a prime opportunity to witness a self-help group that was geared towards helping the relatives and loved ones of addicts deal with the terror of living with, or without, the addict in question. Addiction is a disease which impacts so many more lives than just the addict themselves. Al-Anon meetings are meant to help support the efforts of those loved ones as they face very different issues associated with addiction.

Though all protests may not result in violent activities, they are still able to leave a detrimental effect on society, as protests may violate people’s rights, especially the right to privacy. A specific example of one’s right to privacy being violated by protests is the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals (Anti- Defamation League 2013). Although these protests are peaceful a majority of the time, they disrupt military funerals and infringe on the grieving family’s right to privacy. More specifically, those who are mourning the loss of a loved one expect to do this in private, not with protesters rioting in the background, disrupting the secluded funeral. Eventually, limitations were placed on these unconstitutional protests stating that protesters must be a certain distance from the funeral and can only protest two hours before and after the funeral (The Huffington Post 2016) . Though some may believe both the right to petition and assemble should be unlimited, this case demonstrates that these rights must be restricted in order to protect the contradiction of others’ right to

In the beginning of this article, Rosenbaum relies on the appeal of emotion, pathos, to persuade his audience to agree with his claim. He tries to achieve this by telling a story of a church group picketing the funeral of a gay marine. He states, “The Supreme Court upheld the right of a church group opposed to gays serving in the military to picket the funeral of a dead marine with signs that read ‘God Hates Fags’ ” (Rosenbaum). This event caused an uproar and disrupted the peace of a marines’ funeral. Many people began to question the limits of free speech because of this. How can people use hateful speech such as

A pastor in Sullivan City, Texas said he will start carrying a handgun while preaching from the pulpit, a change that was prompted by the mass shooting at the First Baptist Church (FBC) in Sutherland Springs which killed 26 worshippers on Nov. 5.

Some of the most interesting arguments were in regards to weather Snyder was a public figure or not. The Snyder’s Lawyer claimed they were handpicked to gain the maximum amount of exposure in regards to the protests and picketing by the Phelps family and Westboro. Westboro claimed they had protection under the first amendment, speech on public issues and speech on a matter of public concern, because Snyder made his son a public figure by asking, publicly, for an end to the war. Westboro also claims they were not “up close and in their grille, or berating” insisting that it was public speech rather than harassment. Both sides were given equal opportunity to argue their case, and both were asked equally difficult questions.

In result to this case, the majority of the court noted that the Texas law discriminated upon the law. They feel that this act might bring up anger in other people and more flag burning. The majority of the court also agreed that Johnson had the right to use that form of symbolic speech because it is protected by the first amendment. They find this act is very offensive, but the society’s outrage alone is not justification for depressing Johnson’s freedom of speech.

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,