Westboro Baptist Church decision: Alito dissents, says free speech not a license for "vicious verbal assault"

By: Jan Crawford
Topics: Supreme Court ,; Crossroads

Fred Phelps Jr., a member of Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka Kansas, walks around the US Supreme Court with anti-gay banners on October 6, 2010 in Washington, DC.

(Credit: Getty Images)

Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenter in Wednesday's Supreme Court decision to protect the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to hold inflammatory, anti-gay protests outside of funerals, insisting the funeral protests did not deserve constitutional protection.

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote in his dissent.

High court rules for military funeral protesters

The Westboro Baptist Church, an anti-gay fundamentalist group led by Rev. Fred Phelps, habitually protests high-profile events as a means to publicize its view that U.S. deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are God's punishment for American "immorality" - particularly in regard to national tolerance of homosexuality.

The church is best known for protesting the funerals of military servicemen, and famously carries signs with such sayings as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Fags Doom Nations." (It has also, however, picketed such events as theater productions and high school graduations.)

The father of Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq in 2006 and whose funeral was protested by Westboro Baptist Church, sued the group in 2006 and won $11 million in damages. (The figure was later reduced to $5 million by a judge.) But in the 8-1 ruling on Wednesday, the Court said the church could not be held liable for inflicting emotional distress on the families of deceased soldiers.

The justices said the speech was protected because the protests were on a matter of public concern, on public property and conducted in a peaceful manner.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and--as it did here--inflict great pain," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the decision. "On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation, we have chosen a different course--to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

Alito noted in his dissent, however, that the father of the soldier was not a public figure, but "simply a parent" who wanted to "bury his son in peace."

Alito said the father suffered "severe and lasting emotional injury" as a result of the church's "malevolent verbal attack."

He added that such vicious verbal attacks that make "no contribution to public debate" are not protected when they inflict "severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity."

Jan Crawford
Jan Crawford is CBS News Chief Political and Legal Correspondent. She is from "Crossroads," Alabama.
Follow on Twitter »

74 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 74 Comments


by 010sonny June 6, 2011 6:59 PM EDT: I was just wondering. Why are not the offended, taking their frustrations out, in an organized protest at the church steps every time they have services and or when they are burying one of their own. Make it a festival atmosphere of protesters.
Gay, Atheist and Veterans unite your protest or sit quietly and observe the churches protest.; Reply to this comment


by billholahan March 22, 2011 4:43 AM EDT: The question is whether one can sue for emotional damages. The answer is yes. The Phelps' freedom of speech will eventually backfire on them. A court of law cannot just simply declare that the hate speech is protected by the constitution and therefore no one can sue for damages. That is wrong. In America we are free to speak, but we must understand that what we say can get us into trouble. The WBC has not seen the beginning of trouble yet.; Reply to this comment


by myth1958 March 21, 2011 9:20 PM EDT: The Phelps family business is a law firm - which happily sues anyone who stands in the way of them picketing with their obscene signs. But really, other than the money angle - I believe the Phelps crowd is afraid of their own homosexual tendencies. Why else would they obsess about gays in every corner of the country? They can't stop thinking about them. Perhaps the next time they show up, the gay community ought to hold up signs showing this 'christian' group engaged in gay activities with each other - a visual reminder of their obsession right in their face. That would be free-speech protected, wouldn't it?; Reply to this comment


by levelheadedtoo March 5, 2011 10:35 AM EST: The world hates these people. There is nothing else they can do to get lower than they already are.

I have to use the facilities now , so I'm printing this story so I can put it behind me.; Reply to this comment


by billholahan March 5, 2011 5:04 AM EST: The WTC has been spewing hatred since the 1970s, true. But this insanity is infectious. My fear is that our civil laws will be corrupted by these deviants. When Senators cry fowl when it comes to approving gay marriage, we can always publicly compare them to the insane members of this forlorn church. But what good would that do? Insane people don't know they're insane.; Reply to this comment


by billholahan March 5, 2011 4:37 AM EST: The hateful rhetoric has been spewing since the 1970s, how true. But my fear is that people are easily infected by such talk, and the fairness of American civil laws will be sabotaged by fear and loathing.; Reply to this comment


by mandylou4u March 4, 2011 5:33 PM EST: Wouldn't this be considered inciting a riot? It would be for me because I wouldn't be able to stop myself from attacking these folks if they showed up at my loved one's funeral. I know people talk big sometime about what they would do, I believe I would have to take my action.; Reply to this comment


by documemts March 4, 2011 12:53 PM EST: Religion trumps reality in US.; Reply to this comment


by Lindag10 March 4, 2011 10:47 AM EST: Why bother with having a jury and trial system that is part of the Constitution? The Federal Appeals judges and the Supreme Court, except for Alito have made it perfectly clear that juries are too stupid to weigh evidence and arrive at a just verdict. Probably because they think juries have common sense.; Reply to this comment


by freeamerica31 March 4, 2011 10:32 AM EST: These folks are out there and have been for so long. The good news for now is they don't have a large following and they are commiting mass suicide (I know some people might like to see it). Just remember they have children in this group who don't know it's actually wrong. The best thing for all (especially media) is to ignore this group and get them out of the news. When they stop receiving the attention they are obviously receiving currently, they will eventually give up and or the leadership will die off from old age. To the father of the Honorable Soldier who died serving his country and to the many others, I say I'm sorry for your loss and for this atrocity toward those who served Honorably. I can only tell you in the military we live by core values and keep our heads high despite those that would attack us while we defend them. Honor, Courage, Committment.; Reply to this comment