I agree with the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Synder v Phelps, which upheld the Westboro Baptist church’s right to free speech during their picketing of military funerals. The Court’s decision was settled in the determination of whether the speech in question was of public or private concern, which is protected under the First Amendment. The court reversed its decision and applied the First Amendment protection of speech on matters of public concern, even when the speech was offensive or hurtful. “Westboro had been actively engaged in speaking on the subjects addressed in its picketing long before it became aware of Matthew Snyder, and there can be no serious claim that the picketing did not represent Westboro’s honestly held beliefs on public issues” (CITE). The Court also emphasized that Westboro’s picketing did not disrupt the funeral and was conducted peacefully, warranting protection under the First Amendment. “Westboro had been actively engaged in speaking on the subjects addressed in its picketing long before it became aware of Matthew Snyder, and there can be no serious claim that the picketing did not represent Westboro’s honestly held beliefs on …show more content…
This decision aligned with the Hustler Magazine, Inc. v Falwell case, which recognized the First Amendment as a defense in state tort suits. In Hustler Magazine Inc. v Falwell, The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the magazine from being held responsible for intentionally causing emotional distress. As well in Connick v. Myers, the Supreme Court held that speech on public issues occupies the "highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values" and is entitled to special protection (CITE). This was similarly demonstrated in the case Snyder v. Phelps, where the First Amendment shielded the Westboro Baptist Church from legal liability for picketing a military