Essay Example on Westboro Baptist Church Protests Military Funerals

The Baptist Church based in Kansas- Westboro was engaged continuously in picketing in military funerals together with its co-founder, Fred Phelps. They used to picket to advance their views on God's punishment to the United States for it had tolerated and promoted homosexuality by allowing the killing of the country's soldiers. Phelps accompanied by his daughters and grandchildren at one point picketed in a slain marine funeral by the name of Matthew Snyder who died in the line of duty in Iraq. They used to conduct themselves as was required by the police orders peacefully. Their signs, however, contained writings such as God hating Fags and America is doomed.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

This move irritated the father to the deceased (Matthew Snyder), and he instituted a suit against the Baptist Church and enjoined Phelps and his daughters on the grounds of defamation, invasion of private life through publicizing it, emotional distress that was inflicted intentionally, intrusion, summing it up with civil conspiracy. A Federal District Court ruled in favour of Matthew's father (Albert Snyder) and issued a summary judgment in regards to defamation and the interference of private life publicly. The remaining three claims were tackled with the Jury, which also determined the case in favour of the deceased father thereby awarding him $ 2.9 million as compensatory damages and punitive damages amounting to $ 8 million.

The decision of the Court did not sit well with Phelps, and as such, he decided to make an appeal, and the Court reversed the lower Court's decision while taking into consideration the First Amendment ground. It held that the expression by Phelps was a speech that was made based on public concern. This move then saw Albert Snyder appeal to the Supreme Court which was in agreement with the decision by the Appeals Court, thereby affirming it. Justice Roberts, whose decision was one of the majority opinions, held that Phelps's speech revolved around matters consisting of public importance and placed emphasis on the conduct of the protestors and applauded their peaceful manner as was required by the police orders.

Justice Robert also addressed himself on the claim of emotional distress and in doing this, he focused on the outrageousness requirement and stated that such a condition is highly malleable and intrinsically subjective when it is application is on classes of speeches that touch on a matter that attracts public concern. In addressing the question of privacy invasion, he rejected the requirement of a captive audience as relied upon by Snyder and stated that the protestors were far away from where the funeral took place and that the doctrine of a captive audience is only applicable for the protection of homeowners' privacy rights. On that same light, he also found the claim on civil conspiracy to lack merit.

In conclusion, the Court addressed itself on the language of the First Amendment values, and it stressed on the robust nature of speech stating that it can lead people to undertake an action, make them shed tears and also inflict great pain as was the case in this situation. The Court, however, chose not to react to the pain and therefore did not resort to punishing the speaker, this is because hurtful speech is sometimes protected as long as it is on matters of public concern.

The center of this case then is on the kind of protection that should be accorded to speakers whose actions affect a private party who eventually becomes the unwilling recipient of such public messages. The relevance of the case, as explained by (Sacks, 2011), appears to be an attempt by the Court in creating a category of speech that is protected in the public forum. The case also restored the doctrine of Captive Audience in its proper shell (Salamanca, 2011) by clearly demonstrating its effect in that if an individual is subjected to a public offensive treatment, then he usually has the option of either walking away or staying at that particular. 'Captive' in itself is typically used to demonstrate a situation whereby one has no escape root and is therefore left with no choice but to stay and become the unwilling instrument of the offensive public message.

One of the arising issues in the case was rooted in the idea of the value of privacy, which is usually guarded jealously (Day, 2006) as its components bring forth the autonomy of an individual. The guiding principle of this concept is that not all persons are entitled to know everything concerning an individual. The breach of this leads to a loss in control and the undermining of one's autonomy. It is on this ground that Albert Snyder vested his ground on intentional interference with private life. The protection of privacy seeks to enhance ways through which individuals may safeguard their reputations so that it cannot be tarnished, just like what Albert Snyder tried to do in an attempt to protect the reputation of his deceased son.

There is usually a clash between the right to privacy and the right to know with the latter being majorly a duty that is bestowed to the media thereby enabling the access to information as is permitted by different jurisdictions. The balance between the two is still not clear as sometimes there have been instances where individuals have sued media houses on accounts of the invasion of privacy. There have been slight improvements over the years, especially with homosexuality cases as gay and lesbians are seen to appear on several television shows. Even though sexual orientation is usually considered a matter falling under the ambit of private affairs unless it touches on public interest, the media has been seen to hold interviews regarding homosexuality comfortably.

In the midst of protection of privacy and the right to access information, the media is placed at the center. Attempting to understand its role so as to appreciate its existence in a democratic society is therefore inevitable. The media provides information to its viewers through objective reporting so long as they have verified the contents of the information and ascertained the truthfulness of the same; it should also be one that touches on public interest. It is only when these requirements are fulfilled that they can evade a suit on defamation and invasion of privacy in the event they are instituted against them. In a democratic societal setting, the media is responsible for keeping the government, organizations, and powerful entities in check and accountable to the people they serve. This can only be possible if there is an enabling environment in which the media can work in without unnecessary interference.

Reference

Day, Alvin. (2006). Ethics in Media Communications, Cases, and Controversies. Madrid, Spain: Thomson Wadsworth. Retrieved from https://b-ok.cc/book/340752/a2d50c

Salamanca, P. E., (2011). Snyder v. Phelps: A Hard Case That Did Not Make Bad Law. Cato Supreme Court Review, 57-80. Retrieved from https://object.cato.org>snydersalamanca_0

Sacks, D. P., (2011). Snyder v. Phelps: A Slice of the Facts and Half an Opinion. Cardozo Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?