Super interesting episode! I am curious why Snyder's legal team decided to argue with a view to the outrageous behavior of the Westboro protestors rather than their own voliated rights to speech. It sounds like the protestors were both seen and heard (despite what Marge told the Justices). Surely one's right to speech stops when it infringes on the speech of another?
The first amendment protects speech only against government infringement. Until ratification of the 24th amendment, it protected it only against infringement by the federal government. The 14th amendment applied 1st amendment protections against infringement by all governmental entities, but not against infringement by individuals.
What I heard from this episode is that the Supreme Court's decision reversed the earlier civil damages awarded by jury. I'm trying to understand how that intersects with federal protection of speech.
I assume Snyder sued Westboro and Phelps in Federal court because Snyder is a Maryland resident and the defendants are of Kansas. The jury awarded damages to Snyder for "invasion of privacy" and "causing emotional distress." At this point, this appears to be a simple torte and I do not see any relevance to the 1st Amendment.
Then a Federal Circuit court reversed the jury ruling and specifically cited inappropriateness of Jury Instruction 21 which stated:
"you as the judges of the facts in this case must determine whether the Defendants’ actions were directed specifically at the Snyder family... you must then determine whether those actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection."
The circuit court goes on to write that "it is well established that tort liability under state law, even in the context of litigation between private parties, is circumscribed by the First Amendment..." (here they site Hustler v. Falwell) "Thus, regardless of the specific tort being employed, the First Amendment applies when a plaintiff seeks damages for reputation, mental, or emotional injury allegedly resulting from the defendant's speech."
To me, it sounds like if you're sued for damages [related to speech], you can try to claim protection under the 1st amendment because a civil suit may be interpreted as a type of government infringement, even though you yourself might be the party doing the infringing upon the initial plaintiff.
Yes, but injured parties have the right to pursue remedies for the harm they do with that speech.
Super interesting episode! I am curious why Snyder's legal team decided to argue with a view to the outrageous behavior of the Westboro protestors rather than their own voliated rights to speech. It sounds like the protestors were both seen and heard (despite what Marge told the Justices). Surely one's right to speech stops when it infringes on the speech of another?
The first amendment protects speech only against government infringement. Until ratification of the 24th amendment, it protected it only against infringement by the federal government. The 14th amendment applied 1st amendment protections against infringement by all governmental entities, but not against infringement by individuals.
What I heard from this episode is that the Supreme Court's decision reversed the earlier civil damages awarded by jury. I'm trying to understand how that intersects with federal protection of speech.
I assume Snyder sued Westboro and Phelps in Federal court because Snyder is a Maryland resident and the defendants are of Kansas. The jury awarded damages to Snyder for "invasion of privacy" and "causing emotional distress." At this point, this appears to be a simple torte and I do not see any relevance to the 1st Amendment.
Then a Federal Circuit court reversed the jury ruling and specifically cited inappropriateness of Jury Instruction 21 which stated:
"you as the judges of the facts in this case must determine whether the Defendants’ actions were directed specifically at the Snyder family... you must then determine whether those actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection."
The circuit court goes on to write that "it is well established that tort liability under state law, even in the context of litigation between private parties, is circumscribed by the First Amendment..." (here they site Hustler v. Falwell) "Thus, regardless of the specific tort being employed, the First Amendment applies when a plaintiff seeks damages for reputation, mental, or emotional injury allegedly resulting from the defendant's speech."
To me, it sounds like if you're sued for damages [related to speech], you can try to claim protection under the 1st amendment because a civil suit may be interpreted as a type of government infringement, even though you yourself might be the party doing the infringing upon the initial plaintiff.
free to speak - free to get sued
Yes, we do. Regardless how loathsome.