Big First Amendment Ruling

In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the power of the First Amendment.  This time in support of bigoted, terrible people who go to military funerals with signs that antagonize the grieving relatives.

The Opinion purports to be narrow, but reading some of the reasserted First Amendment principles embedded in it, one (me) cannot but wonder whether or not this opinion will later be used as a basis to overcome that terribly misguided prosecution that is ongoing in New York that I blogged about a few days ago (jury tampering for passing out pamphlets that inform jurors of their power to nullify).

"Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding West-boro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case. “[S]peechon ‘matters of public concern’ . . . is ‘at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection.’” Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 758–759 (1985) (opinion of Powell, J.) (quoting First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 776 (1978)). The First Amend-ment reflects “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). That is because “speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 74–75 (1964). Accordingly, “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145 (1983) (internalquotation marks omitted).

Alito dissented.  He characterized the speech as an assault: "In this case, respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder, and this attack, which was almost certain to inflict injury, was central to respondents’ well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention,"and then went on to note his trouble with the fact that the church members "far beyond commentary on matters of public concern, specifically attacked Matthew Snyderbecause (1) he was a Catholic and (2) he was a member of the United States military."