|
Last September, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the verdict, ruling Westboro's protest was constitutionally protected speech. The Supreme Court agreed last month to consider whether the protesters' actions, no matter how provocative and upsetting, are protected by the First Amendment. The case will be argued in the fall. Then something unexpected happened: The appeals court ordered Snyder to pay Westboro $16,510 in court costs. While it's not unusual for the losing party in a civil case to be required to pay some costs, it rarely happens when an individual sues a private entity, especially when the case is still active, experts say. Margie Jean Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' daughters and an attorney, will argue the case before the Supreme Court. She has said the church plans to use the money from Snyder to stage more protests. That's what's so upsetting to Snyder, who says he would drop the matter if the church stopped picketing funerals. Snyder has received plenty of publicity since filing the lawsuit, but interest intensified after the court-ordered payment. Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly pledged to pay the entire $16,510, and the American Legion has raised more than $20,000. Every day, hundreds of envelopes arrive at Summers' office. Snyder plans to use the money for other court fees and to donate what's left over to veterans. Not everyone is on Snyder's side, even if they find Westboro's protests loathsome.
They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land
-- 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md. The protesters -- Phelps and six family members -- broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake. Jonathan M. Turley, a George Washington University law professor, asked his constitutional law class to grapple with the case. At first, the entire class was sympathetic to Snyder. But after they dug deeper, they concluded that Westboro's speech was protected by the First Amendment. "Once you get down to trying to draw the line between privacy and free speech, it becomes clear that a ruling against Westboro could create the danger of a slippery slope for future courts," Turley said. Turley, who studies the Supreme Court closely, said it's difficult to predict how the justices will rule. Phelps-Roper has no doubt the court will favor Westboro. "If that case can prevail, there is no First Amendment left," she said. Some military families see no reason why such protests cannot be restricted. "I don't think these people should be allowed to come in and disrupt a family's grief," said Diane Salyers of Sims, Ark., whose son's funeral was picketed by Westboro in 2007. Snyder "speaks for all of us who've been affected by these people."
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor