Family of fallen Marine split on Westboro ruling

By George P. Matysek Jr.

gmatysek@CatholicReview.org

Two members of a family whose loved one was killed in Iraq had different reactions to a March 2 Supreme Court decision upholding the First Amendment rights of members of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest outside the 2006 funeral of Matthew Snyder at St. John Parish in Westminster.

In a narrowly applied 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court said the right to free speech trumps the rights of a deceased Marine’s family to be protected from emotional distress intentionally inflicted by extreme and outrageous protests outside his funeral.

Albert Snyder, father of the 20-year-old Marine, sued Rev. Fred W. Phelps and members of his of Kansas-based Westboro congregation, seeking financial compensation for emotional distress, defamation and other such injuries.

A Maryland federal district court ruled in favor of Snyder, but the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling.

Albert Snyder was outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the 4th Circuit’s ruling. The high court’s decision came one day before the fifth anniversary of his son’s death.

Speaking in a press conference following the ruling, he said “eight justices don’t have the common sense God gave a goat.” The most difficult part of the ruling, he said, was knowing that the money he will have to pay the Westboro Baptist Church will likely support protests at other military funerals.

“We found out today that we can no longer bury our dead in this country with dignity,” Snyder said. “Right now, with this opinion, it’s anything goes.”

Although she called the actions of Westboro Baptist Church “evil,” Jane Perkins, Matthew Snyder’s maternal aunt, agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“I am grateful that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Constitution – not evil – but the Constitution,” Perkins said in an interview with The Catholic Review. “The justices made it very clear in their brief that such a decision might be different in the future based on varying circumstances that might be brought before them.”

Perkins emphasized that she believes her nephew’s funeral was a beautiful liturgy. It was not interrupted “by the evil that was present at a distance,” she said.

“My family was aware that the WBC would be present with their evil thoughts and words, and we, as Catholics and Christians, know that message is false,” she said. “So we did not look towards them, but rather, celebrated the life Matt lived and found other avenues to circumvent the viciousness of the WBC.”

Though the protest was at a distance and the funeral procession was routed so as to avoid traveling near it, Albert Snyder saw coverage of the protest on the news during the wake.

Westboro protesters believe U.S. servicemen are dying because God is punishing the U.S. for its tolerance of homosexuality. They held signs such as “God hates fags,” “Matt in Hell,” and “Priests Rape Boys.”

Matthew Snyder was Catholic, but not gay.

In writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Westboro members had a constitutional right to be where they were and to say what they did.

“Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible,” he said. “But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.”

The court cannot react to the pain inflicted by protesters by punishing the speaker, Roberts said.

“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. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”

Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter on the court, wrote a strong rebuttal, arguing that the breadth of rights under the First Amendment does not include intentionally inflicting severe emotional injury “by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate.”

Catholic News Service contributed to this article.

 Print