[The other ruling, where again (see last SC entry) Scalia and Thomas split, was a 8-1 ruling that had a helpful footnote noting "[f]or those of us for whom it is relevant, the legislative history," a good way to avoid a brief concurrence from Scalia on the point. Why can't this be done more often?]
[See here for more on the privacy promoting aspects of the opinion.]
It did not address the constitutionality a state law regarding such protests passed after the fact, but did note the protest did not violate at least one aspect of the law and its content neutral quality makes it different from singling out a protest of this nature. No intrusion was found that justified penalizing the protectors, particularly since the home was the involved and the funeral / memorial service was not invaded. [Alito suggested the group got as close enough as they could and avoid trespass laws, but the majority opinion notes "Several buildings separated the picket site from the church."] Again, different situations might be imagined where an invasion of privacy (e.g., intrusion upon seclusion) suit could work.
Justice Alito had a solo dissent as he did in an earlier case dealing with distasteful speech, there involving a law involving "crush porn" and other portrayals of animal cruelty. He opposed the "right to brutalize" upheld here. Speech does sometimes do just that. Freedom of speech is so important because it matter, including in ways that hurt. A newspaper article can hurt the people discussed. It "may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate." Or, rather, no significant contribution. That is the true meaning of Alito's words. And, why, he wonders, do the protests have to be placed at these places, when there are so many? Because it is a means for a small group to get the most exposure. If the group is benign, in the minds of the sentiments of the person viewing the situation, this is a good thing. Or, so people think. Generally speaking, see here.
The majority opinion assumes that the speech here is of public concern. Alito notes that it is largely targeted to one person. But, the movement here -- like other movements -- do have a general public policy concern, even if in various cases they address single examples of the concern in action. And, though the majority did not have to address the question, the family here made their hero slain solider into a public figure. They (rightly) celebrated him and did not make the memorial service into a purely private family event. Financial penalties for public protests in such a case is even more problematic than would be the case for a standard funeral.
A good ruling that helps a distasteful group. Some might even think protest should be protected more than suggested here, given its references to private v. public speech and the like. A bit of now famous Roberts minimalism, perhaps. But, it is a good ruling all the same. Hate might win, but the rules set will in the end help us all. [After all, even now, some think gays are the disgusting ones, including in public places.]
For the past 20 years, the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church has picketed military funerals to communicate its belief that God hates the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in America’s military. The church’s picketing has also condemned the Catholic Church for scandals involving its clergy. Fred Phelps, who founded the church, and six Westboro Baptist parishioners (all relatives of Phelps) traveled to Maryland to picket the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq in the line of duty. The picketing took place on public land approximately 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was held, in accordance with guidance from local law enforcement officers. The picketers peacefully displayed their signs—stating, e.g., “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “America is Doomed,” “Priests Rape Boys,” and “You’re Going to Hell”—for about 30 minutes before the funeral began. Matthew Snyder’s father (Snyder), petitioner here, saw the tops of the picketers’ signs when driving to the funeral, but did not learn what was written on the signs until watching a news broadcast later that night.
-- SNYDER v. PHELPSCJ Roberts wrote the opinion (Breyer concurred separately to suggest its narrow nature) with only Justice Alito in dissent. The opinion turned on the "public" nature of the speech in question, even if some of the signs were arguably addressed to one individual in particular. It concerned opinion on matters of public debate (e.g., our nation's treatment of gays) and was done peacefully in a public place. A verbally abusive attack on a person for merely private reasons would be a different situation. A "wanted poster" targeting abortion providers that might be seen as a threat, ditto. Any "emotional distress" in this case, however, arose from protected speech and conduct.
[See here for more on the privacy promoting aspects of the opinion.]
It did not address the constitutionality a state law regarding such protests passed after the fact, but did note the protest did not violate at least one aspect of the law and its content neutral quality makes it different from singling out a protest of this nature. No intrusion was found that justified penalizing the protectors, particularly since the home was the involved and the funeral / memorial service was not invaded. [Alito suggested the group got as close enough as they could and avoid trespass laws, but the majority opinion notes "Several buildings separated the picket site from the church."] Again, different situations might be imagined where an invasion of privacy (e.g., intrusion upon seclusion) suit could work.
Justice Alito had a solo dissent as he did in an earlier case dealing with distasteful speech, there involving a law involving "crush porn" and other portrayals of animal cruelty. He opposed the "right to brutalize" upheld here. Speech does sometimes do just that. Freedom of speech is so important because it matter, including in ways that hurt. A newspaper article can hurt the people discussed. It "may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate." Or, rather, no significant contribution. That is the true meaning of Alito's words. And, why, he wonders, do the protests have to be placed at these places, when there are so many? Because it is a means for a small group to get the most exposure. If the group is benign, in the minds of the sentiments of the person viewing the situation, this is a good thing. Or, so people think. Generally speaking, see here.
The majority opinion assumes that the speech here is of public concern. Alito notes that it is largely targeted to one person. But, the movement here -- like other movements -- do have a general public policy concern, even if in various cases they address single examples of the concern in action. And, though the majority did not have to address the question, the family here made their hero slain solider into a public figure. They (rightly) celebrated him and did not make the memorial service into a purely private family event. Financial penalties for public protests in such a case is even more problematic than would be the case for a standard funeral.
A good ruling that helps a distasteful group. Some might even think protest should be protected more than suggested here, given its references to private v. public speech and the like. A bit of now famous Roberts minimalism, perhaps. But, it is a good ruling all the same. Hate might win, but the rules set will in the end help us all. [After all, even now, some think gays are the disgusting ones, including in public places.]