Westboro Baptist Church Soldier's Funerals Summary

The Fourth Circuit contradicted the District Courts, concluding that Westboro’s statements were entitled to First Amendment protections on religious expression because those statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed

“By the mid nineties, the issue couldn’t exclude religious speakers from the list” The new look of religious cases allowed for people to go against the law of religious freedom. - pg 113 “But the stat denied a request heightened the differences between them.” The law of freedom of speech works for many terrible groups of people, making them question if they are actually doing the right thing. Support:

Our First Amendment within the United States Constitution protects our freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, which are umbrella terms for our right to protest, among others. We, as american citizens, have the right to protest whatever we choose,whether it be a television program, a new law that has been passed, or in the Snyder v. Phelps case, deceased veteran funerals. Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder’s family filed a lawsuit against the Phelps family and their followers, otherwise known as the Westboro Baptist Church, who the Snyder 's felt intentionally inflicted emotional distress whilst picketing Matthew Snyder’s funeral. The United States Supreme Court determined that speech in a public space, cannot be liable for any emotional distress,

The Court noted, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." For example, although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon what message was communicated. Finally, the Court concluded that Texas' interest in preventing breaches of the peace did not support Johnson's conviction because the conduct at issue did not threaten to disturb the peace.

This truth allows the reader to understand that with their civil liberties comes the need of awareness and discernment. In a free and liberated society we have the ability to decide our own actions and beliefs with little government interference. It 's not illegal to

For example being on a plane and yelling bomb or being in a crowded room and yelling fire when there is no bomb or fire. Yelling those things will cause people to panic and can cause problems and might injure people. Everything else should be protected under the first amendment. A quote from Benjamin Franklin, “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought

The 1st amendment is a God-given right and the fact remains that there will be idiots in a world that hands a microphone to the very first controversial person because a world that distorts the view of political, religious, and social matters to persuade a country to feel a certain way toward an issue deemed pivotal towards keeping the status quo of keeping a racial superiority while keeping a suspicious hint of racial tension. Just because a church exercises the right to free speech people try to add in emotions to an emotionless issue. If you added emotions into everything people would start getting arrested for calling someone ugly or annoying. The world and people as a whole need to learn to grow a set and learn how to not get offended

They were arrested and charged. The Cantwells then said it was a violation of the 14th Amendment. The court found them to be innocent based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it violated due process. This case contradicts because it shows the law questioning any form of religious practice while also accepting free exercise of religion. The Bill of Rights is separated where only some rights are applied to state

The right to protest is a basic human right guaranteed straight out of the U.S Constitution. However, this right was infringed upon when the Birmingham police force used excessive force to quell a peaceful civil rights protest. Not only did they throw Martin Luther King Jr. in jail for protesting peacefully, but also his fellow clergymen applauded the actions of the Birmingham police force. Persuasive and Hopeful, Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” letter urges the clergymen to change their opinion on the way the police acted, and also what he hopes the future will be like for African Americans in America. Through his use of tone, rhetorical appeals, and rhetorical tools, King Jr. attempts to sway the opinions of

First Amendment rights are guaranteed to all American citizens, but current free speech issues are testing Constitutional boundaries. Where must the line be drawn between free speech and infringement upon others’ rights? Is there some speech so cruel and so appalling that it does not merit protection? These issues have been raised by the recent activities of the Westboro Baptist Church. Based out of Topeka, Kansas[1], this small group of radicals is marked by their hateful views and their contempt for homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety and sparked national outrage with their offensive acts, particularly by protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers.

Smith case, state and national law trump personal religious beliefs. Even if the court were to decide that Philips’ cake designing is a form of free speech, his religious beliefs that he claims would prevent him from using this free speech does not exempt him from following in accordance with Colorado State’s Anti-Discriminatory Act. While the first amendment gives people the right to free speech and free exercise it is understood that a person cannot practice these things at the expense of the rights of others. The rights of the first amendment are held near and dear to their hearts of American people, but there is a consensus that you cannot do things like run into a movie theater and yell “fire!” or inflict harm on others in the name of religion. Furthermore, people respect and appreciate that state and national governments can inforce other laws that may put limits on the protections of the first amendment for this reason which is why the ruling in Employment Division of Oregon V. Smith is seen as

The First Amendment provides freedom in two different clauses. One states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Those clauses are the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. (Ginsberg et al. 99) There should not be limits on freedom of speech.

While in the Court of Appeals, Phelps’s argument was that the First Amendment protected their judgment. Court of Appeals agreed to Westboro’s primary argument that the church was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the First Amendment protects Westboro’s speech. The Court says the picket signs were also protected under the First Amendment, because the statements deal with public concern. The jury could not find Westboro

I A. B. Cantwell v Connecticut (1940) D. Jesse Cantwell and his son going door to door in their neighborhood talking badly to people about the religion of catholicism which lead to two people becoming angry. This leads to the Cantwells being arrested for breaking a local ordinance that requires a permit for solicitation and also for encouraging an infraction of the peace E. Were the Cantwells first amendment free speech rights violated when they were religious views were suppressed and did they encourage an infraction of the peace or not. F.The court ruled that you could restrict general solicitation but you could not put limitation based on religion and that if you did so it would be trying to silence someone's views.

Free speech and hate speech can be classified as different topics and when arguing for one, we can also criticize the other. Free expression and free speech on campuses are crucial for sparking important conversations about equality and social justice, and the suspension of free speech and expression may have dire consequences on college campuses. First, freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views, while also allowing students with common beliefs to align. Free speech and the call for free speech allows those who have been historically systematically oppressed to use their voice.