Case Analysis: Snyder v. Phelps and the "Fighting Words" Doctrine

  Case Analysis: Snyder v. Phelps and the "Fighting Words" Doctrine In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, 462 US 443 (2011), the Supreme Court grappled with the clash between free speech rights and the emotional distress caused by the Westboro Baptist Church's picketing at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. To evaluate the Court's decision, it is essential to review the facts of the case, the issue at hand, and consider whether the Court's legal reasoning was agreeable. The case involved members of the Westboro Baptist Church, notorious for their extreme and offensive anti-gay protests, demonstrating on public land near the funeral service of Lance Corporal Snyder. The picketers displayed signs with provocative messages, targeting the military's tolerance of homosexuality. Matthew Snyder's father filed a lawsuit against the church, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion. The primary issue before the Court was to determine whether the First Amendment protected the church's speech and expression during a public protest near a funeral. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church, arguing that their speech was protected under the First Amendment. Justice Scalia's discussion of the "fighting words" doctrine during oral arguments brought attention to an important aspect of free speech jurisprudence. The "fighting words" doctrine, established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), refers to certain types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment due to their inherently inflammatory and likely to provoke an immediate violent response. However, in the majority opinion of Snyder v. Phelps, the doctrine was dismissed in a footnote and received limited attention in the concurring opinion. To address the request to find another case that utilized the "fighting words" doctrine, I reviewed Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). In this case, Paul Robert Cohen wore a jacket bearing the phrase "Fuck the Draft" inside a Los Angeles courthouse. He was arrested and convicted under a California statute prohibiting offensive conduct. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction, emphasizing that Cohen's message was protected by the First Amendment. The "fighting words" doctrine defines speech that is not protected by the First Amendment due to its potential for immediate violence or public disorder. It typically involves direct personal insults or abusive language directed at an individual face-to-face. The doctrine seeks to strike a balance between free speech rights and maintaining public order and safety. It limits speech that is likely to incite an immediate breach of peace or spark violence. In the case of Cohen v. California, it could be argued that the "fighting words" doctrine could have been applied. Cohen's message on his jacket contained profanity and was displayed within a courthouse, which could potentially disrupt court proceedings or provoke an immediate violent response. However, the Supreme Court determined that Cohen's expression constituted political speech rather than "fighting words" that would incite immediate violence. Regarding Snyder v. Phelps, an alternative analysis could have focused on whether the picketing constituted targeted harassment or intrusion upon seclusion rather than solely relying on protected speech considerations. This approach might have resulted in a different outcome by weighing the emotional distress inflicted on Matthew Snyder's family against the Westboro Baptist Church's free speech rights. Ultimately, I agree with the Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps based on First Amendment principles protecting even offensive and controversial speech. While recognizing the emotional distress caused by the Westboro Baptist Church's actions, it is vital to safeguard free speech rights, particularly in public spaces where robust discourse and dissent are essential components of democratic societies. The difference between the free speech case of Cohen v. California and Snyder v. Phelps lies in their respective contexts. Cohen's case involved an individual expressing a political message through profanity in a courthouse setting, while Snyder's case dealt with a group picketing near a military funeral with signs containing controversial statements about homosexuality and war casualties. Both cases underscored the significance of free speech protection but were nuanced in their application due to differing circumstances and potential impact on public order and emotional distress.  

Sample Answer