Westboro Baptist Church

Westboro Baptist Church:For the case, which offers a variety of points of interest is not surprising that the first Wednesday Amendment showdown over the military funeral protests seemed to produce as many areas of inquiry from the judge.
However, after an hour’s argument seems the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually question the views of the parties with respect to Albert Snyder, a Maryland man who sued the church members that the controversial protest the funeral of his son.
Justice Antonin Scalia questioned the claim of Snyder at the beginning of the argument, because it covers not only claims to protest the funeral, but the Web publishing made a month after the funeral.
“What does this have to do with the funeral,” Scalia said. This is one of the problems I have with this case.
Shortly thereafter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – who seemed the most favorably tuned for free speech arguments Westboro Baptist Church – wondered how Snyder could claim when it is not Maryland criminal law was violated during the March 2006 protest. She then put the burden on families Snyder suggested that they might seek a ban on protesters if they do not want them to church for the funeral Matthew Snyder, the Marine who was killed in Iraq.
Justice Samuel Alito focused on the purpose of the signs held by protesters, including one who said: “God hates you.” There has been disagreement in the lower courts that the sign was directed specifically at a family member or Snyder was a generalized statement of hyperbole.
Alito pointed to a Web publication called “The Burden of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder,” as evidence that the signs were sent. The distinction is important because if the court decides that the protesters were to send their comments to a specific person, then that increases the potential liability to the picketers. Of the other judges, only Chief Justice John Roberts, seemed inclined to pick up on this issue.
Snyder’s attorney, Sean Summers, pressed the argument in his brief to the court that the funeral protest was unnecessary forum for protest and the First Amendment should not be used as a cover for violations of the funeral. “We’re talking about the funeral. If the context is ever a question, it must issue in the context of funerals. Mr. Snyder just wanted to bury his son in a private, dignified way. When the defendant’s conduct made it impossible, Mr. Schneider is entitled to apply to tort law of Maryland, “Summers told the court.
Margie Phelps, daughter of founder Fred Phelps’ church, in the face of the church and told the court the protest was made with “great caution” and within the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s precedents.
Some judges suggested that hypothetical situations are trying to determine at what point of free speech concerns to transfer the rights to privacy. Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Phelps that the protection of mourning my grandmother could expect from someone saying terrible things about her dead grandson.
Justice Elena Kagan asked what would happen if someone was aimed at protests in their home, business and elsewhere. She asked Phelps if he or she would be a viable claim in this instance. “My response, Justice Kagan is: No, I do not believe that people should have a cause of action or will be under your cases, the cause of action,” Phelps said, as long as the protests could be considered harassment or confrontation.
The judges were hardly settled on a standard that would both respect the sanctity of the funeral while respecting freedom of expression with the latter concern is apparently of a higher priority.