90 CHAPTER 4|CIVIL LIBERTIES
When the WBC protested at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew
Snyder, his father, Albert Synder, sued the church for defamation, intentional
infl iction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The district federal court
ruled in Snyder’s favor, awarding $5 million in damages. But the appeals court
reversed the ruling, setting up an appeal to the Supreme Court. The case drew
extensive attention with 48 states, 42 U.S. senators, and many veterans groups—
including the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars—fi ling briefs on
behalf of Snyder, while more than 20 national news organizations fi led briefs
arguing that the WBC’s protests should be protected by the First Amendment.
In its 2011 decision, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 that the WBC’s protests were
protected speech: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to
tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—infl ict great pain. On the facts
before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we
have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues
to ensure that we do not stifl e public debate.”^3 The justices said that the speech
was not defamation because most of the WBC’s signs were related to political
issues, such as American involvement in wars and the service of homosexuals
in the military. They also argued that the Snyder family’s privacy rights were not
violated because the protesters were 1,000 feet from the funeral. Justice Samuel
Alito, the only dissenter, disagreed: “Our profound national commitment to free
and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred
in this case.... In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly
and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent
victims.”^4
The Court’s strong reaffi rmation of the First Amendment’s protection of
hurtful and unpopular speech is an excellent illustration of our central theme
that politics is confl ictual. It is diffi cult to imagine speech that is more confl ictual
than the WBC’s protests. Indeed, the entire purpose of the protesters’ speech
is to generate confl ict. But the case also shows that compromise is possible.
The “time, manner, and place” restrictions that limit the protests to areas away
from the funeral maintain the privacy rights of the grieving families, at least to
some extent, while protecting the First Amendment rights of the protesters.
While the plaintiffs and their supporters were not happy with this compromise, it
represents the outcome of the legislative and judicial process.
The case also illustrates our other two themes. The evolution of the meaning
of civil liberties, as largely defi ned by the courts, is a great example that the
political process matters. Despite the WBC members’ overwhelmingly unpopular
views, they may continue picketing because the legal process has endorsed their
interpretation of the Constitution. Civil liberties also are an excellent example
that politics is everywhere. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly; privacy
rights; and the rights of criminal defendants generate great public interest
because they are so central to our political system and our daily lives.CHAPTER goals
Defi ne “civil liberties,”
and explain how the Bill of
Rights came to apply to the
states.
¾ PAGES 91–97
Describe the major First
Amendment rights related
to freedom of speech.
¾ PAGES 97–104
Describe the First
Amendment rights related
to freedom of religion.
¾ PAGES 104–09
Explore why the Second
Amendment’s meaning on
gun rights is often debated.
¾ PAGES 109–10
Describe the protections
provided for people
accused of a crime.
¾ PAGES 110–16
Explain why the rights
associated with privacy are
often controversial.
¾ PAGES 116–19