First, a minor point of clarification: There is nothing to suggest that Matthew Snyder was gay. I point this out because it seems that his family was more than nominally Catholic, and thus may have been extra offended at the Westboro's insinuation that he was.
I think Justice Bryer's concurrence had the best take on it. I think that the Court probably got this one right, but there are a number of factors that could have easily made it go the other way. If the Snyder family had been forced to see the signs on the way to the funeral, or if the Court had been willing to consider the "epic" addressed directly to the Snyder family, I would disagree with the Court's decision. The fact that this seems to have been an unobtrusive, peaceful protest that Westboro cleared with the police in advance is all that saves it.
Also, I think the fact that this was in the context of IIED makes a big difference because of the nature of a tort claim. Generally, one does not have a duty to not be an asshole, and tort is all about breach of duty. When I first heard about this case I assumed incorrectly that the Westboro people had been arrested for disturbing the peace (or the Maryland analog). My response was immediately that what Westboro was saying was fighting words, and absolutely not protected in that context. I still think this is true, though it doesn't seem like the disruption or disturbance required for a criminal charge was present here. Again, had the mourners actually encountered the protesters rather than simply hearing about what they said later I think this case could have gone differently in a number of ways.
no subject
I think Justice Bryer's concurrence had the best take on it. I think that the Court probably got this one right, but there are a number of factors that could have easily made it go the other way. If the Snyder family had been forced to see the signs on the way to the funeral, or if the Court had been willing to consider the "epic" addressed directly to the Snyder family, I would disagree with the Court's decision. The fact that this seems to have been an unobtrusive, peaceful protest that Westboro cleared with the police in advance is all that saves it.
Also, I think the fact that this was in the context of IIED makes a big difference because of the nature of a tort claim. Generally, one does not have a duty to not be an asshole, and tort is all about breach of duty. When I first heard about this case I assumed incorrectly that the Westboro people had been arrested for disturbing the peace (or the Maryland analog). My response was immediately that what Westboro was saying was fighting words, and absolutely not protected in that context. I still think this is true, though it doesn't seem like the disruption or disturbance required for a criminal charge was present here. Again, had the mourners actually encountered the protesters rather than simply hearing about what they said later I think this case could have gone differently in a number of ways.