Educating Young People about the Constitution
Bill of Rights in the News
Teacher Answer Key
1. In Snyder v. Phelps, what are the facts of the Supreme Court
case? What is the constitutional question?
The suit was filed because several members of the Phelps family and members of
the Westboro Baptist Church stood in protest outside the funeral of an Iraq war
soldier, holding signs with inflammatory phrases on them. The father of the
soldier, Snyder, filed a lawsuit against the Phelpses saying that the picketing
caused an intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of privacy, and
conspiracy.
The constitutional question is: Should the protection of free speech be limited
when the ideas expressed can be tied to severe emotional distress?
2. What were the arguments on the side of Snyder? What were the arguments on the side of
Phelps? How did the Court rule?
The Phelps family/Westboro Baptist Church argument is based on freedom of
speech and freedom of assembly.
The Snyder argument is based on limiting free speech when it causes intentional
emotional distress, and violations of individual privacy.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the Phelpses, saying that the Free
Speech clause of the First Amendment protected those actions.
3. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision and quoted the following sentence from an
earlier case, Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975):
“…the Constitution does not permit government to decide which types of
otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for
the unwilling listener or viewer.”
Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?
Accept reasoned answers.
4. In Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (1941), one of the cases that Justice Alito cited in his
dissenting opinion, it says:
200 North Glebe Road, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: 703-894-1776 www.BillofRightsInstitute.org
Educating Young People about the Constitution
“There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the
prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any
Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the
libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very
utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It
has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any
exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that
any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social
interest in order and morality.”
Do you agree with this reasoning? Why or why not?
Accept reasoned answers.
5. One of the key points in the case was whether the statements on the picket signs were of a
private or of a public nature. Using the above links, read the arguments presented in the
majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts and the dissent written by Justice Alito. Which
arguments do you find to be the most persuasive? Why?
Accept reasoned answers.
Extension
The rulings of the Supreme Court have the power to expand, limit, or maintain the protection
of free speech in the United States. In the following cases, was freedom of speech expanded,
limited, or maintained?
•
Abrams v. United States (1919) – Maintained.
•
Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (1941) – Limited. Any speech that might “incite an
immediate breach of the peace” was to be restricted.
•
Cohen v. California (1960) – Expanded. This decision ruled that messages,
specifically profanity, written on clothing constitute speech.
•
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) – Expanded. The burden of proof created to
show that libel had occurred against a public figure became even higher.
•
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – Slightly limited. While the Ku Klux Klan group
was not found to be guilty, the Court set a standard that speech could be limited if
it was “inciting or producing imminent lawless action”.
Educating Young People about the Constitution
•
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975) – Maintained. The Supreme Court
argued that those offended by nudity in drive-in movie films could “readily avert
their eyes”.
•
Texas v. Johnson (1989) – Expanded. Acts of protest like flag burning became
part of free speech.