"FREEDOM OF SPEECH" - THE GOOD BAD & UGLY

Today we were educated in the First Amendment's right of Freedom of Speech.  It is sometimes amazing to think that this was the "First" Amendment and is so strongly rooted in our history; and yet, the Amendment is tested often.  Earlier today, the US Supreme Court held that this freedom remains paramount to the liberties created by our forefathers more than 200 years ago.

The case, Snyder v. Phelps, et al (2011) 580 F.3d 206, affirmed the lower court's ruling and was decided by an 8-1 majority.  In summary, defendants Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church had a long history (20 years) of demonstrating at funerals of US soldiers to show solidarity in the belief that the US Military and the US have sinned against God by allowing homosexuals in the military.  The demonstrators otherwise complied with public protest laws, but held signs saying things like: "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", "America Is Doomed", and "F--s Doom Nations".

The opinion (as summarized in the Court Syllabus) basically held the following:

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell , 485 U. S. 46 . Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case. “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers , 461 U. S. 138 . Although the boundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public concern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,” id., San Diego v. Roe , 543 U. S. 77 . A statement’s arguably “inappropriate or controversial character … is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.” Rankin v. McPherson , 483 U. S. 378 . Pp. 5–7.

The primary focus as to whether speech is public, is on the content.  In this case, the Court clearly discerned that the content of the speech (the language on the signs) was public - the content dealt with defendants' opinions related to how the US and its military dealt with the issue of homosexuality in the military.  Importantly, the Court noted that defendants in this case took great strides to remain peaceful and otherwise comply with all regulations then in effect with respect to picketing/demonstrating.  The Court held it irrelevant that the content expressed was found by the jury to be "outrageous".


Thus, the freedom to speak against politicians you disagree with, the right to vehemently disagree with public officials, call them names, etc., is generally protected.  The burning of the US flag has been upheld as being protected by the First Amendment.  These freedoms are sometimes questioned, but the premise behind the freedom is that minority opinions are just as protected as majority opinions - this was the primary rationale for the Bill of Rights in the first place.


What are your thoughts?