lsdt301
100 words agree or disagree each questionsQ 1.In Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), fighting words “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit derived from them is overshadowed by the social interest in order and morality.”[1] The ‘fighting words’ doctrine allows the government to limit speech when it is likely to provoke immediate violence and retaliation by the recipients of the words.Though the scope of this doctrine has been limited by the Supreme Court, in cases where governments seek to restrict free speech, it is still considered a category of speech as established in the Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. The words are often assessed not only by the words themselves but the context and manner in which spoken. Generally the courts require that the speaker intended to cause a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violence.[2] In Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), the fighting words doctrine would not have been applicable as the speech was in relation to a public issue was completely protected, and could not be prevented as it was on public property.Justice Alito dissent stated that “the First Amendment does not protect this type of vicious attack on an individual, which could not fall within the meaning of free speech.”[3] Westboro Baptist Church members protest consisted of ‘aggravating factors,’ as their signs were indeed provoking, whether or not their intent was to incite hatred and violence.[1]Chaplinsky v. N.H., 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031, 1942 U.S. LEXIS 851 (Supreme Court of the United States March 9, 1942, Decided ). Retrieved from https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-5HB0-003B-74NR-00000-00&context=1516831.[2] https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/[3] Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/562/443/Q 2.in 2011 a U.S. Marine, Lance Corporal Mathew Snyder was killed while serving on deployment in Iraq. As anyone would expect; the family of the Marine scheduled a mass and funeral service at their local Catholic church in their hometown of Westminster, VA. Unbeknownst to the Marine’s father, he would come to find a group of protestors picketing outside the funeral. The 7 individuals picketing and protesting outside included Minster Fred Phelps and 6 other members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Snyder would soon file a suit against Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church after watching local news broadcast of the funeral and finally getting to read what was displayed on the signs being held by the church’s members. The signs held read “USA/thank God for 9/11”, “Priests Rape Boys”, “Thank God for dead Soldiers” and so on. (Snyder v. Phelps, 2013)Snyder would go on to win millions of dollars but would go to have the ruling reversed in the United States Court of Appeals. The very reason being protection under the 1st Amendment. This decision was made after the Court of Appeals found that not all freedom of speech is given the same amount of importance and that when the speech is of “public concern” they are actually granted “special protection”. This “special protection” protected the protestors because freedom of speech cannot be banned or forbidden by the government because it is found to be offensive by society. The Marines Father made the argument that funeral was privately held and that Fred Phelps and the church should not be held under this “special protection”. (Bajackson,2011)Unfortunately, for the Snyder family; Fred Phelps and the other members of he Westboro Baptist church took all necessary legal actions to legally hold the protest and complied with all laws. The members were not on the church’s property, but instead a 1000 ft. away, being separated by several buildings in the area. Secondly, the court found that the Church members were protected under the 1st Amendment because they did not have a “private grudge” with he deceased or his family. (Snyder v. Phelps, 2013) Justice Scalia did bring up the “Fighting Words” Doctrine that was established in the Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. This Doctrine states that fighting words are words that in their very utterance cause injury or cause an immediate breach of peace. This however, proved insufficient for Snyder did not even see the signs until after the funeral was over.I want to personally say; that I do not agree with what was done; and in no way, shape or form, support the decisions made by the Westboro Baptist church and as much as I want to be on the side of the Marine and his family; I think the Justices at the time made the best decision possible. They not only acknowledged the cruel acts as such, but also decided to uphold the constitution by affirming the 1st Amendment and the freedom of speech.ReferencesBajackson, E. (2011). Snyder v. phelps. The Urban Lawyer, 43(3), 901-902. Retrieved fromhttps://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/902766768?accountid=8289The Demise of the Chaplinsky Fighting Words Doctrine: An Argument for Its Interment. (1993). Harvard Law Review, 106(5), 1129.https://doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.2307/1341686Snyder V. Phelps. (2013). Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/persamend/snyder_v_phelps/0Q 3.In the case, Snyder v. Phelps, Matthew Snyder was killed in action while deployed. His father set up his funeral in Maryland at a Catholic church. Reverend Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, found out about the funeral and travelled from Kansas to Maryland to protest. Rev. Phelps and the 6 members that were with him, stayed 1000ft away from the church and they were on public property. When the funeral precession drove by the protesters, Mr. Snyder saw the top of the signs, but did not see what was written on them until that night on the news/internet. The courts sided with Rev. Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church saying that this was Freedom of Speech and the protest and signs spoke to the public on a public matter. They also stated that doing these protests during or at a funeral allows them to get more publicity for their cause. It was also stated that because Mr. Snyder put his son’s funeral arrangements in the newspaper, that he made his son a public figure. The protesters did not get out of line or scream, they did not yell profanities, and they were not obscene in any way. Justice Scalia brought up the “fighting words” doctrine which is described as any words that are likely to entice a person to act immediately physically, are not protected by Freedom of Speech. Justice Scalia was correct to bring up this doctrine for what some of the signs had written on them. The one in particular that should have been looked at very closely was “Thank God For Dead Soldiers”. As much as I believe this to be a part of the “fighting words” doctrine, the word that sticks out in my mind is immediately and how that can be interpreted. In this particular case, the protesters were not in sight of the funeral and Mr. Snyder could not see the signs. Therefore, an immediate physical altercation could not have been attempted for the simple fact that Mr. Snyder did not know what they were protesting. However, if Mr. Snyder would have seen this particular sign after his son had just died in the military, would that be enough to entice him into an immediate physical altercation? I believe that it would be enough to entice anyone that had just lost a loved one in that manner. With that being said, I believe that the “fighting words” doctrine should have been taken more into consideration and I believe that a different outcome could have been made.
