The Rev. Fred Phelps and his followers, who have made a practice of ugly protests at the funerals of dead soldiers, are hateful people who rely on shock value to get attention for their anti-gay agenda. Their words and actions are despicable.
Yet they ought to be protected by the First Amendment.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments pitting Phelps’ free speech rights against the right of a family of a dead soldier to privately and peacefully grieve their loss.
In the court of public opinion, the propriety of the actions of Phelps and his followers, most of whom are his extended family, is an easy call. Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas lose.
These are people who flew 1,000 miles to attend the 2006 funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, carrying signs with messages such as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “You’re going to hell.”
Somehow, according to the twisted beliefs of Phelps, Snyder’s death was punishment from God for this country’s tolerance of homosexuality, especially in the military.
For the record, Snyder wasn’t gay. The protest was an effort to get publicity for the church’s beliefs, no matter who got hurt.
Snyder’s family was aghast, and sued the Phelps contingent for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They won $11 million in damages at the trial, but the damages and verdict later were reversed.
Now, the case has landed in the Supreme Court, where the central question is whether Phelps’ speech should lose its constitutional protections if it is deemed to be outrageous or causes severe emotional distress.
Such a determination would set a dangerous precedent. If the court decided speech can be squelched because it is deemed to be “outrageous,” that decision would set a perilously subjective standard.
It’s not hard to imagine how such a precedent could be extended to curb other “outrageous” speech or protests.
As distasteful as it is, the court should find in favor of the protesters. The First Amendment becomes a shadow of itself if it does not protect controversial and detestable speech.
