The protests of Fred Phelps and his family in Maryland could not amount to a lawsuit against Phelps for state tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon inclusion and civil conspiracy. Therefore, the court ruling in favor of Phelps, the defendant, is correct. The verdict was right because, firstly, the tort law under the jurisdiction of common law refers to a civil wrong which amounts to loss or harm to someone else which results to legal liability for the one who has committed the tortious act. From the protestor's sign, no symbol indicated that Phelps and his family intended to cause harm or any loss to Snyder, the plaintiff.
Moreover, the American Constitution provides for freedom of speech, and it protects the citizens from government restrictions on expression in the First Amendment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Furthermore, the Amendment guards the right to obtain information, restrict the liability of torts of individuals for some speech, prevents the government from needing corporation or individuals to speak what they don’t want and as well prohibits state speech discrimination restrictions between different speakers. However, the constitution provides for restrictions on freedom of speech concerning place, time and manner of speech. Before the Supreme Court ruling, the court had to determine whether the form, context and the content of speech placed the protestors’ message under private or public realm.
The court reasoned that picketers were on public land and the signs they carried were naturally general. Additionally, the protester's message was believed to be a public concerned, and the issue fell into the public sphere and not a private realm. The matter was deemed a public concern because the writings in the protestors signs indicated that Westboro was just condemning the modern society, and could not in any way result to cover a personal attack on the complainant, Snyder, for liability.
Similarly, the court would not use the “fighting words” doctrine to determine the case of Westboro protestors. Fighting words, in this context refers to particular speech, which is not protected by the First Amendment, if the speech is considered to be one which tries to incite contravention of peace or can inflict injury. Because the English language contains some expressions which are naturally fighting words if they lack a smile, the message of Westboro protestors could not fit into fighting words since it was just an expression lacking a disarming smile. As such, the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire could not be applied to rule Phelps case.
Reference
Ruane, K. A. (2014). Freedom of speech and press: Exceptions to the First Amendment. Available [online] also at: https://www. fas. org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815. pdf [accessed in Cianjur, Indonesia: September 25, 2014] .
