Editorial: When is free speech too "outrageous"?

Editorial from Freedom Politics.com - "Should speech lose constitutional protection when it is "outrageous" and recklessly or intentionally causes "severe emotional distress"? The Supreme Court is facing this question in Snyder v. Phelps, which was argued Wednesday. Its answer will affect far more speech than the repulsive statements of Fred Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., and his followers. Mr. Phelps's group believes that the deaths of American soldiers, including heterosexual soldiers, are God's punishment for America's toleration of homosexuality. The group often expresses these views at soldiers' funerals, including the one for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who died in Iraq in 2006. Picketers in the vicinity of the Westminster, Md., service for Snyder carried signs with messages such as "God Hates the USA," "Fag troops," and "Thank God for dead soldiers." Later they posted a Web page condemning Snyder's family for not teaching him the supposedly correct religious beliefs. Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, sued, and a jury awarded him $10.9 million. The trial judge held the speech wasn't defamatory—it only expressed religious opinions without making false factual claims. Nevertheless, he said the jury could find that the speech was "outrageous," and that Mr. Phelps and his followers therefore could be liable for the tort of "intentional infliction of emotional distress." The judge also held that they could be liable under the "intrusion upon seclusion" tort": the speech, he said, could be seen as having offensively intruded on the private funeral—even though the speech was partly online and partly 1,000 feet from the service, and even though Snyder's father first read the signs on television later that day. The judge reduced the verdict to $5 million. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on First Amendment grounds. Albert Snyder appealed. Read more

Editorial: When is free speech too "outrageous"?