Bright Tunes Music vs. Harrisongs Music - Business Law Paper

Sample

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (U.S. Constitution.) The freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment appears to be self-explanatory and straightforward, however this clause has been interpreted by numerous courts in many different ways, which has led to several contradicting and ambiguous precedents to be set. A common issue when interpreting the First Amendment in a court case is the question of if common sense and morality are strong enough reasons to dictate an exception to freedom of speech. This question of freedom of speech being taken “too far” is evident in the case of Snyder v. Phelps.
I. Summary of Snyder v. Phelps
Since the 1990’s, the congregation of Westboro Church, of Topeka, Kansas, has picketed funerals of fallen military men and women to express their belief that God hates America for tolerating homosexuality, especially in our military. In 2006, they chose to picket the funeral of a Marine, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, son of Albert Snyder, who was killed while fighting in Iraq. Westboro notified officials they would be protesting, and followed the official’s guidelines, by protesting around 1,000 feet from where the funeral was held, but only about 200 feet from the funeral procession. The congregation held signs displaying statements, such as “ Thank God for Dead Soldiers”, “Fags Doom Nations”, “You’re Going to Hell”, “God Hates You”, along with many others. The petitioner, Albert Snyder, stated that he could see the top of the signs, but he did not know what was written on them until that night while watching the news. Snyder filed a suit against Phelps and his congregation, the Westboro church, in the District of Maryland. Snyder’s tort claims included “intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.” (Snyder v. Phelps ( No. 09-751 ) 580 F. 3d 206). Snyder testified that the picketing had caused him severe depression and health related conditions, which a professional witness testified to be true. Due to Snyder’s emotional distress, the district court ruled that Westboro was liable for almost 3 million dollars in compensatory damages and 8 million in punitive damages, which were due to the intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy claims. However, the Fourth Circuit reversed and held that the First Amendment protected Westboro, mainly because the statements were on a matter of public concern and not directed at a private figure, Matthew Snyder.
II. Was the speech truly of “public concern?”
Whether the First Amendment prohibited holding Westboro liable for its speech, which caused Albert Snyder emotional distress, was largely decided by determining if their speech was of private or public concern. There are many past court cases that address this issue of private versus public concern when referring to speech. The statement that “public concern is something that is of general interest and of value and concern to the public” from San Diego v. Roe can be applied to Snyder v. Phelps because the speech written on the posters concerning homosexuality, the military, the moral conduct of America’s citizens, and the behavior of the Catholic Clergy, were all matters of public concern (San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77). However, what defines “general interest and concern to the public?” These are two broad terms that can be easily interpreted based on what the judge finds important and of concern to himself, therefore the public. Anti- war sentiment is of general interest because it affects the majority, if not all, of our country. However, is this the same for homosexuality and issues concerning the Catholic clergy? With so many debates in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s revolving around the legalization of gay marriage, the protesting by other organizations, beginning with the Stonewall riots and picketing starting in New York City, it is clear that homosexuality is an issue concerning the majority of the public. The speech directed towards the behavior of the Catholic clergy can be seen as a more private issue since it affects a much smaller portion of our society. In addition, the First Amendment always protects freedom of religion. That being said, stricter guidelines on what defines “general interest” and of “concern to the public” could be developed to help courts more fairly determine if a speech is truly of public concern. The most important precedent relating to Snyder v. Phelps, and public versus private concern, was established in Connick v. Myers. In this case, the Supreme Court wrote that it is of public concern if the speech is “relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community” and “whether an employees speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by independently examining the content, form, and context of the speech.” (Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138,148). If we look strictly at the content and form of the speech in Snyder v. Phelps we find that the statements written on the poster were of public concern and the form (posters) were not harmful to the public or the environment. Analyzing the context of the speech is where it becomes complicated. The question here is whether or not the speech was presented in a way directed towards a private figure, Matthew Snyder. If the Westboro congregation had protested with these statements regarding fallen heroes and America’s punishment of dead soldiers in an un-associated location, such as a park, the context would only help to prove that the speech was of public concern. However, the fact that the Congregation’s speech was directly related to God killing military men and women and the protesting location was a soldier’s funeral, makes it hard to separate the speech from the burial of the private figure, Matthew Snyder. Although the content of most of the statements was determined to be of public concern, if we look at the context they were presented in, and the way it appears to the average person watching the news, the statements using “You”, like “God Hates You” and “You’re Going to Hell” seem to be directed at Matthew Snyder, since after all they were protesting at his funeral.
III. What would change if the Supreme Court had ruled in Snyder’s favor?
It was held in Snyder v. Phelps that “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, 50-51.) In this case, since they declared the speech was of public concern, Westboro could not be held liable for Snyder’s tort claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Had the Supreme Court ruled that the speech was not of public concern and was directed towards a private figure, Matthew or Albert Snyder, the case would have taken a 360 degree turn. Instead of looking towards the Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell precedent, the court would have looked to Gertz v. Robert Welch, which applied to private figures. In this case, the court held; “Because private individuals characteristically have less effective opportunities for rebuttal than public officials and public figures, they are more vulnerable to injury from defamation. Because they have not voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehoods, they are also more deserving of recovery. The state interest in compensating injury to the reputation of private individuals is therefore greater than for public officials and public figures” (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 343-345). By following this precedent, the court would have been more likely to hold Westboro liable for the emotional distress of Albert Snyder. However, there have been precedents set in order to determine if the court could hold Westboro liable. “Four elements must exist to hold someone liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress: The conduct must be intentional or reckless, the conduct must be extreme and outrageous, there must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress, and the emotional distress must be severe” (Womack v. Eldridge, 215 Va. 338, 210 S.E.2d 145). Although the emotional distress and harm Albert Snyder suffered would have passed each of the requirements needed to hold Westboro liable, it would have been more likely and justifiable for the court to hold Westboro liable for a Negligent Inflection of Emotional Distress Claim. The difference in this type of claim is that the harm to the plaintiff is said to be caused by the defendant’s carelessness, not necessarily deliberate actions to harm. According to AllLaw.com, “the requirements to hold a NIED claim are a defendant’s negligent conduct, which must have some sort of physical impact, plaintiff must have been in the “zone of danger” of the act, or it must have been foreseeable by the defendant that their action could cause emotional harm”(par.4). In Snyder v. Phelps, Westboro might not have gone through with their protest with the clear intent to inflect emotional distress upon Albert Snyder, but it would be “foreseeable” by any reasonable person that someone who is already mourning the loss of their son would be traumatized by turning on their TV and seeing news broadcasting of posters stating their son is going to Hell and that his death was a punishment. The congregation’s conduct was negligent because they did not consider how it would affect the family members at the funeral, and Albert Snyder was in the “zone of danger” because he could clearly see the top of the signs and it is unreasonable to expect him to avoid watching the news where the videos of the protestors and their signs were being shown. With that said, we can conclude that had the court ruled the speech was not of public concern, then Westboro would have been held liable for the damages of the emotional distress they negligently caused Albert Snyder.
Also, had the court ruled that the speech was not of public concern, and that Snyder was indeed a “captive audience” at his son’s funeral, the future interpretation of what defines an audience, as “captive”, would become much more loosely translated. In Frisby v. Schultz, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote, “The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech.” Albert Snyder could not avoid this speech unless he left his son’s funeral, did not turn on national television for months, and avoided all media. Realistically, this would not have been possible; therefore Albert Snyder could be described as being a “captive audience” of the Westboro congregation’s protests. Had the court ruled that Snyder could be considered “captive,” the locations that protests would be permissible would drastically decline. Abortion clinics could then be considered to hold “captive audiences”, along with other locations that are currently still thought of as public forums where freedom of expression is always permitted.
IV. Could the court have applied the Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions?
In the past, courts have applied a four-part test to determine if they could apply time, place, and manner restrictions to a form of individual expression that would otherwise be protected under the First Amendment. No time, or manner restrictions could have applied to the Westboro protestor’s speech. However, place restrictions could have been broadly interpreted to apply to Westboro’s speech had they protested on the grounds of the cemetery. According to the legal dictionary on freedictionary.com, the government is generally allowed to regulate forms of expression occurring in non public forums, which are “public or private properties devoted almost exclusively to purposes other than individual expression.” A cemetery fits this description since it a privately owned property devoted to a specific purpose. Fitting into the description of what would be considered a “form restriction,” would not be enough to override their protection by the First Amendment.
V. What legislative actions occurred as a result of the holding of the court in Snyder v. Phelps?
The decision to protect Westboro’s speech led many states to propose or pass statutes changing the legality of funeral picketing by increasing the distance the protestors must be from the funeral site, or the amount of time they must leave before and after the funeral. States realized that while the court had held Westboro protected from liability by the First Amendment, it did not make specifications for future similar cases. Many states began to propose statutes establishing “buffer zones,” areas and times where protestors would be permitted to picket a funeral. Also, as a result, in August 2012, our president signed the Honoring Americans Veterans Act, protecting our veterans and their families from future events like the Westboro funeral picketing. The Act held that protestors must be at least 300 feet away from military funerals and cannot protest within 2 hours of start or finish. Along with this act came more protests, but this time with the intention of blocking Westboro’s congregation. “Two of these counter-efforts drew national attention last month, when large groups of people turned out in both Missouri and in Texas in an attempt to create "human walls" to shield attendees of military funerals from Westboro"s demonstrations.” (Wing, Huffington Post). After the ruling in Snyder v. Phelps, sixteen states enacted statutes that “would double and even triple the distance that protestors must keep from funerals to 1,000 feet and increasing the time (up to five hours) before and after military funerals when protests are not allowed.” (Free Speech at Military Funerals, New York Times). The time, place, and manner restrictions make it constitutional for a state to uphold statutes such as these as funerals can be considered non-public forums, and the audience could be seen as “captive.” Had these statutes been enacted prior to the picketing of Snyder’s funeral, no change would have taken place in the court’s holding since the protestors were 1,000 feet away from the funeral. However, they would have acted as strict guidelines for the court to follow.
VI. Is morality a strong enough reason to dictate an exception to freedom of speech?
There have been many cases in the United State’s history where the freedom of speech clause has allowed people to do and say what a reasonable person would typically describe as “unthinkable” and “immoral,” yet they are not held liable because the First Amendment protects them. In Snyder v. Phelps we see a perfect example of where common sense and morality are not sufficient reasons to take away the protestors constitutional protection of free speech. The question will continue to remain if there is ever a point where the protection of the freedom of speech does not outweigh the harm and distress created to others through that speech. Groups like Westboro have a constitutional right to hold up signs that insinuate that gays, America’s military, and the Catholic Clergy are the reasons our country is doomed, but that does not make it a responsible, ethical decision to do so. The constitution was written to protect our freedom of speech and expression, so it will continue to always be upheld, even in “immoral speech” cases like Snyder v. Phelps. The key is for courts to establish narrower guidelines on protests that would prevent the severe harm of others because that type of speech is not what the constitution intended to protect.
Works Cited
"SNYDER v. PHELPS." SNYDER v. PHELPS. Cornell University Law School, 06 Oct. 2010. Web. 1 Mar. 2014. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html>.

Gregory, Sean. "Why the Supreme Court Ruled for Westboro." Time. Time Inc., 03 Mar. 2011. Web. 1 Mar. 2014. <http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056613,00.html>.

United States. SNYDER v. PHELPS. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Supreme Court of the US. Web. 1 Mar. 2014. <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf>.

"Connick v. Myers." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2014. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/461/138>.

"Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2014. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/418/323>.
Michael Bakhama, Building Picket Fences: Maryland’s Funeral Picketing Law After Snyder v. Phelps, 71 Md. L. Rev. 1231 (2012) < http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol71/iss4/17 >.
"Free Speech at Military Funerals." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Aug. 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/opinion/free-speech-at-military-funerals.html?_r=0>.
"Introduction to the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment." Introduction to the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Mar. 2014. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/firstaminto.htm>.
"Harris v. Jones | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2014. <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/intentional-interference-with-person-or-property/harris-v-jones/2/>.
"City of San Diego, California Et Al. v. John Roe." FindLaw | Cases and Codes. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2014. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1669>.
"Time,Place,and Manner Restrictions." TheFreeDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2014. <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time%2C%2BPlace%2C%2Band%2BManner%2BRestrictions>.
"Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims (NIED)." Alllaw.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2014. <http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/negligent-infliction-emotional-distress.html>.
Hudson, David L., Jr. "First Amendment Center." First Amendment Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2014. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/was-father-captive-to-funeral-protesters>.
Wing, Nick. "Honoring America"s Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Funeral Protests." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 06 Aug. 2012. Web. 4 Mar. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/honoring-americas-veterans-act-obama_n_1748454.html>