If the family of a dead marine prevails in its lawsuit against Westboro Baptist Church, the decision could diminish First Amendment protection for offensive speech, experts say.
“If it prevails, it will mean bad laws and could be detrimental to the First Amendment rights in the United States,” said Ronald Collins, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va. “It could have very significant impact.”
Jury deliberations began Tuesday in the first suit against Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist group from Topeka, Kan., sued after picketing outside Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder?s March 2006 funeral in Westminster.
Picketers held signs reading, “Fag troops” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.”
Snyder?s father is suing in U.S. District Court in Baltimore for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy.
If he succeeds, experts say, it would have a chilling effect on expression of opinions some find offensive.
“Speech can be powerful, but punishing speech becauseit?s considered offensive raises obvious First Amendment issues,” said Susan Goering, director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Maryland. “It runs the risk of punishing people for their views.”
But Sean Summers, Snyder?s attorney, argued the law protects only speech that is not offensive to a reasonable person. The nearly 70 Westboro members are not reasonable, he said.
They say they protest soldiers? funerals because they believe God kills Americans as vengeance for the country?s tolerance of homosexuality.
“The First Amendment will not change regardless of what happens today,” Summers said. “The only thing that might change is these folks might think twice about protesting someone?s funeral.”
But Westboro?s attorney, Jonathan Katz, argued the First Amendment is meant specifically for people like his clients. The protection is not needed for people who all have similar beliefs, he said.
