Oct. 7, 2010. Marge Phelps, lawyer for her family and extended church family, appeared on CNN’s “Washington Journal.” My reaction to what she had to say is put here in her medieval mindset, so that I can get my bias out of the way at the onset. The stench of sulphur oozed from my t.v. set. I’ve heard that the devil’s greatest accomplishment was in convincing people he does not exist. Not really. His greatest accomplishment comes from convincing people that he is close enough to god to know what god’s likes and dislikes are and behind which star and on which planet god takes a crap. Now that that’s out of the way, maybe we can discuss the case without getting into homophobia or spiritual one-upmanship.
The case: A father (Snyder) gave his gay son a funeral with military honors.The Phelps family showed up with placards and speeches about god’s hatred of homosexuals and how 911 and the current economic crisis are just deserts (Dies Irae) for America’s tolerance of gays.
The case of Snyder against Phelps was won by Snyder on the grounds of emotional distress, for which Snyder was awarded megabucks. Then a judge overthrew the ruling. Now the case is before the United States supreme court. The court, not wanting to wade through the fens of homophobia and religious preferences, will have to retry the case on interpretations of first amendment rights.
One side’s lawyers argue that the funeral, since it contained military honors, was public, not private. They argue that emotional stress is essentialy unproveable. Those on the other side argue that the first Amendment of the US Constitution does not give anyone the freedom to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater or does not give neo-natzis the right to protest at the holocaust museum.
In our age of cell-phone video and instant internet access, with texting, sexting and social networks, the sad instances of the suicide at Rutgers and the girl who was cyber-bullied into commiting suicide beg for a clear and sensible distinction between what is public and what is private. IMHO, that issue must be settled prior to discussing what exactly distinguishes free speech from liscence to say anything.
While I agree that we need to come to terms with the internet and privacy, I don’t think the Snyder case is quite the same as the Rutgers one, because those two despicable students used a camcorder to tape the guy’s activity in his dorm room without his knowledge. They clearly violated his privacy with that act, even before they posted it on the net. In the Snyder case, the religious fruitcakes didn’t violate the family’s privacy, they instead made extremely offensive statements. Really, it’s in cases that are as emotionally charged as this one where we have to be even more vigilant about freedom of speech. Horrid as these people are, despicable as their speech is, it’s still protected by the First Amendment. Freedom comes with a price and this situation shows us that the price is sometimes pretty high. I think it would be even more horrid if we caved into our disgust as the reason to head down the slippery slope of placing limits on speech. What I heard was that the father who sued them read what they’d said about his son on the internet, he actually never saw or heard them at his son’s funeral. They were following the local ordinances as far as keeping the required distance away from the funeral scene. So it’s also not the same as yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Yeah, they were voicing opinions with which 99.999% of people disagree. But do we start setting percentage limits as far as what is deemed so offensive that it must be prohibited? Do we do this event by event? If so, who gets to set them? What usually happens is that we create or add to defined categories of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment. So, while I may want to vomit at the religious crazies’ words, I think that if we set up a new category under which we can prohibit their right to voice their ideas and opinions in the public arena, then ultimately we lose.
This is well thought. Thanks.
Ing,
Thanks for your post.
On Friday evening CNN aired Wednesday hearings on the merits of this case. In the hearing Marge Phelps and Sean Summer (lawyer for Albert Snyder)presented their opposing views on the matter. Watching the hearing I found Marge Phelps to be a well-informed lawyer and formidable opponent.
Phelps claimed that the picketing of Matthew Snyder’s funeral was done within legal guidelines for any type of protest, mainly, as you mentioned, the legally allowed distance between the protest and the funeral. The protest, however, was visible from the funeral site. Her answer about whether or not the messages on the groups’ signs could be considered incendiary, she responded that such an interpretation is subjective.
Questioning from the justices included such issues as 1. Which protests are legal and which are not? 2. What is the distinction between harrassing an individual and drawing attention to a mindset one considers as public and wrong? 3. Is language legally permissable if the language causes a fight? 4. What constitutes emotional distress? Etc.
Justice Breyer asked Summer how Albert Snyder learned what the Phelps group was doing. Summer responded that Snyder had found that information on the internet. For me, that probably explains why Snyder’s first case was overturned. Not so for Justice Breyer. He went on to state that what is posted on the internet can raise the legitmate question of what is public and what is private.
While your take on this case seems to have to do with the belief that setting a precedent can cause a chain reaction of similar precendents or could be the standard from which all similar cases are considered, I wonder, then, why the justices could not simply go with that reasonable belief and refuse to hear the case.
I’m guessing that the court will back Phelps. But they might leave the door open for case-by-case decisions using a narrow interpretation that allows other cases to appear before the court. Given a socio/political climate of hatred, mistrust, and divisiveness, we are more than capable of rash and stupid laws that chip away at personal freedoms and privacy. The patriot act is ample proof of that. Bigotry is alive and powerful in this country and our ideals are being sorely tested. We’re living in interesting times…
Thanks, Tent,
I still see problems with the perspectives that see some domino effect in precedents or that see any precedent as incapable of being reinterpreted or overturned. Also, it is hard for me to believe that a large percentage of adult Americans would not find Marge Phelps to be the voice of God in this matter, which makes what her group does or says both right and duty. If you believe in polls, approx. 16% of American adults believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. I’d guess that over 25% would agree with the Phelps group.
I realize we are in the most politically and religiously contentious time since the 60s. Still, I cannot see how that should affect, as you say, a case by case, reasonable definition of what one should be permitted to say in public or private forums. I’m against most types of censorship; but for censoring any acts or words that cause harm to anyone else. I think it is better to err on the side of compassion than on the side of liscence.
In light of all the hate crimes incited by media pundits and making celebrities out of hatemongers, I would have to agree.
i would think you could just ban such protests as a matter of keeping civil order. If they wanted to run ads claiming that 9-11 is God’s punishment for homosexuality, then i would argue for their right to do that - but i don’t think there’s a first-amendment right to systematically disrupt funerals, be they military or otherwise.
Here’s the problem. The protesters didn’t disrupt the funeral. The father didn’t even know they were there until he found out about it on the internet. That’s why this is such a difficult case. The hatemongers kept outside the legal distance. But is this a case of free speech or incitement to hate?
oh
then it’s a free speech issue - i thought the controversy was because the funeral itself got disrupted - like if the protesters were shouting at the mourners or something - but if they want to stand around and make asses out of themselves outside of the mourners’ earshot and eyeshot, then that should probably be their right.
Thanks, UPF and Jonquil.
So, one the issues boils down to after the fact emotional distress: Can such be considered? I recall Albert Snyder saying over and over again, “It was a funeral, just a funeral.”
And his son was just a man for all that. It looks to me as though the notion of privacy and dignity in regard to life moments is undergoing a significant shift, and the camera and electronic interfacing are taking on a role that people are having some trouble adjusting to, particularly when it can be used to bully, shame, ridicule, or attack members of targeted groups. I’m not sure that laws can solve this problem without completely destroying the electronics underlying the social fabric these days. However, there is a counteracting effect in that those who violate implicit privacy codes are themselves unable to keep their doings secret or private. All is there to see.
Thanks, Jonquil,
But I did not see your reaction to the internet in your “Amen” agreement with Ing. So, you are saying, I believe, that the airing of both compassionate and vindictive responses on the internet will tell us which is which in a time of extreme conflict? I could only hope it were so.
Unfortunately, the opinions of the young will be based on who entertains best or can shout the loudest.
I’m just saying that laws and rulings won’t solve the problem of an age of electronic publicity. What was once considered private now gets publicized willynilly. It’s brutal for some and wonderful for others. Some can take it, and some can’t. I don’t like the bullying, attacking, pranking, ridiculing, harassing, and hazing part of it in the least, particularly when they lead to sucide or hate crimes. But the only way you can stop it is to outlaw all electronic media. But the perpetrators and their perpetrations get discovered and aired too. All is out in the open for everyone to see. I do not see that changing even with a SCOTUS ruling against the funeral protesters which I feel is unlikely because they did not break the law. They just got found out by way of the internet.
Our collective and individual ids are getting amazing publicity these days… everywhere. I mean, who would have thought that this site would become a haven for pornography, sexism, and homophobia; but it is. It’s everywhere, and everyone can see it. To grow up a sheltered child in an innocent world is practically impossible now. It’s a different world.
Couldn’t there be some regulation of sites that does not entail shutting down the internet? Craig’s List recently dropped its sexual solicitation compartment. Are we, as the public in general, too jaded and mentally numbed to decide what is right and what is wrong?
So far the majority of opinions posted here are in favor of Phelps winning the case. But I have not seen a really good argument as to why this should happen.
Well, Phelps did not break any laws. The funeral was not disrupted, and the father only found out about the protest on the internet. Thus, I can’t really see why Snyder has a case when it comes to free speech.
The problem with hate these days is not so much that it exists or gets expressed, it’s the way the media turns it into a ratings and celebrity circus. That way it gets cache. How do you control that?
You can’t. As H.L. Mencken said, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. I’ll add to that, right after intelligence, “or taste”.
So true. Our society needs its curmdudgeonly iconoclasts. Being without a Mencken or a GB Shaw is like trying to live with a missing body part or something like that. Here’s what they said about criticism, just for yuks and thought too.
Criticism is prejudice made plausible. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
A dramatic critic is a man who leaves no turn unstoned. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
Still, no satisfactory, IMHO, arguments as to why Phelps should win. As previously stated, I do not buy the arguments about precedents. Also, it is difficult for me to find in ideas about the stupidity of the average human any excuse for suggesting nothing can or cannot be done about the liscence vs free speech issue. And, about retro “emotional stress”, if anyone came to me today and preached to me that my parents’ deaths, which occurred 30 years ago, even if I learned what they preached from the internet, were due to some infractions they made in attempting to follow or disobey the laws of God, I would relive that emotional time and would react as if it had happened today.
This is getting close to justifyinging curtailing free speech rights based on the emotional distress that one person or group’s speech might have on another. You really have to be careful here because any person’s speech can have an emotional impact on someone regardless of whether you consider it fair and right speech or unjust and wrong speech. Thus, the question is this. How does a fair, free, and just society determine what falls outside the bounds of free speech?
Remember those “free speech” zones that Bush set up to keep himself out of earshot and photo range of protesters and demonstrators? Recall the way the media silences or marginalizes some speakers and demonstrators who represent the progressive left while giving plenty of airspace to the crazed right, particularly the new face of the KKK called the tea party? Rightwing idiots like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman become rich celebrity media creations and gain some aura of credibility, spouting the most blatant stupidity, hate, and nonsense. All this causes me considerable emotional distress, but the solution is not to curtail free speech rights; it’s to uphold them fairly and justly for everyone by reviving the Fairness in Media Act and by establishing enforceable regulations on the press/media completely prohibiting their use of funds and airtime to promote political groups or candidates.