Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1080/08997225.2012.10556384
Christine M. Smith
During the global war on terror, soldiers in the theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan created, uploaded and circulated videos that chronicled their experiences in the war zone. These videos, which took the form of combat music videos or tributes to fallen soldiers, served as the latest manifestation of soldiers’ “letters home” and were widely covered in popular culture and academic venues (see Anden-Papadopoulos; Christensen; Coughlin; Kaufman; McClam; Sax; Smith & McDonald; Terry). News accounts initially praised the soldier-produced videos for providing images that served as an alternative to military sanctioned material and fostered public engagement with the war effort. The military also believed the videos allowed soldiers to fill their downtime and communicate with friends and family. However, several controversies over offensive videos led the military to re-conceptualize their strategic communications approach. One such controversy involved the posting of “Hadji Girl,” a video of a song by U.S. Marine Joshua Belile, which described a fictional love affair and killing of an Iraqi civilian and her family. The term “Hadji” is a derogatory term that some military personnel serving in Iraq used to describe the civilian population. In the song, Belile goes to a Burger King where a young Iraqi girl entices him to follow her home. Upon arrival, her male relatives begin to attack him. Using the girl’s sister as a human shield, he proceeds to kill the entire family. The visual depiction had Belile performing the song for fellow soldiers who could be heard cheering and laughing at Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq. The video was initially uploaded in March 2006. It was widely circulated and debated in June 2006 and subsequently generated outrage among Muslim-rights and anti-war groups. Conservative groups defended it as an expression of free speech. In particular, on June 12, 2006, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) circulated a press release protesting the song’s celebration of killing civilians and the use of racist language to characterize Arabs. The organization’s stated concern was that “it creates a negative impression of our nation’s military. We’re also concerned that it may be symptomatic of a callousness that is developing against Iraqi civilians, which is also not good for the military or for their image in the Muslim world” (CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, cited in Kaufman). On the other hand, the reaction of some journalists and conservative bloggers claimed the video was merely an example of “blowing off steam” under stressful conditions (Michelle Malkin). Belile echoed this claim when he initially argued, “I think it’s a joke, and anybody who tries to take it seriously knows it’s a joke. People can’t just laugh at it and let it go” (Belile, cited in Mazzolini). Nevertheless, military spokesperson Major Shawn Haney condemned the song: “The video that was posted anonymously is clearly inappropriate and contrary to the high
{"title":"Freedom of Speech in the Global War on Terror: The Case of “Hadji Girl”","authors":"Christine M. Smith","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556384","url":null,"abstract":"During the global war on terror, soldiers in the theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan created, uploaded and circulated videos that chronicled their experiences in the war zone. These videos, which took the form of combat music videos or tributes to fallen soldiers, served as the latest manifestation of soldiers’ “letters home” and were widely covered in popular culture and academic venues (see Anden-Papadopoulos; Christensen; Coughlin; Kaufman; McClam; Sax; Smith & McDonald; Terry). News accounts initially praised the soldier-produced videos for providing images that served as an alternative to military sanctioned material and fostered public engagement with the war effort. The military also believed the videos allowed soldiers to fill their downtime and communicate with friends and family. However, several controversies over offensive videos led the military to re-conceptualize their strategic communications approach. One such controversy involved the posting of “Hadji Girl,” a video of a song by U.S. Marine Joshua Belile, which described a fictional love affair and killing of an Iraqi civilian and her family. The term “Hadji” is a derogatory term that some military personnel serving in Iraq used to describe the civilian population. In the song, Belile goes to a Burger King where a young Iraqi girl entices him to follow her home. Upon arrival, her male relatives begin to attack him. Using the girl’s sister as a human shield, he proceeds to kill the entire family. The visual depiction had Belile performing the song for fellow soldiers who could be heard cheering and laughing at Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq. The video was initially uploaded in March 2006. It was widely circulated and debated in June 2006 and subsequently generated outrage among Muslim-rights and anti-war groups. Conservative groups defended it as an expression of free speech. In particular, on June 12, 2006, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) circulated a press release protesting the song’s celebration of killing civilians and the use of racist language to characterize Arabs. The organization’s stated concern was that “it creates a negative impression of our nation’s military. We’re also concerned that it may be symptomatic of a callousness that is developing against Iraqi civilians, which is also not good for the military or for their image in the Muslim world” (CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, cited in Kaufman). On the other hand, the reaction of some journalists and conservative bloggers claimed the video was merely an example of “blowing off steam” under stressful conditions (Michelle Malkin). Belile echoed this claim when he initially argued, “I think it’s a joke, and anybody who tries to take it seriously knows it’s a joke. People can’t just laugh at it and let it go” (Belile, cited in Mazzolini). Nevertheless, military spokesperson Major Shawn Haney condemned the song: “The video that was posted anonymously is clearly inappropriate and contrary to the high","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124112458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1080/08997225.2012.10556380
J. Dee
In its 2011 Snyder v. Phelps decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church’s right to picket outside a church during the military funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. The Court in essence held that the First Amendment’s protection of speech in a public forum trumps state tort laws allowing for recovery of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Even before the High Court ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket at Matthew Snyder’s funeral, and—adding insult to injury—ordered Matthew Snyder’s father Albert Snyder to pay $16,510 to the Westboro Baptist Church for court costs (Gregory). Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, expressing concern for Matthew’s father Albert Snyder, who “suffered severe and lasting emotional injury” as a result of the Westboro Baptist Church’s “malevolent verbal attack on Matthew Snyder and his family” (Snyder v. Phelps 1222).
{"title":"Trading Picket Signs for Radio Talk Show Appearances Post Snyder v. Phelps: Is This Extortion or a “More Speech” Solution?","authors":"J. Dee","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556380","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556380","url":null,"abstract":"In its 2011 Snyder v. Phelps decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church’s right to picket outside a church during the military funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. The Court in essence held that the First Amendment’s protection of speech in a public forum trumps state tort laws allowing for recovery of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Even before the High Court ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket at Matthew Snyder’s funeral, and—adding insult to injury—ordered Matthew Snyder’s father Albert Snyder to pay $16,510 to the Westboro Baptist Church for court costs (Gregory). Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, expressing concern for Matthew’s father Albert Snyder, who “suffered severe and lasting emotional injury” as a result of the Westboro Baptist Church’s “malevolent verbal attack on Matthew Snyder and his family” (Snyder v. Phelps 1222).","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130929440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1080/08997225.2012.10556388
David R. Dewberry, Catherine L. Langford
The 2008 presidential election is a historic example of democracy in action. The presidential campaign, however, also provides unfortunate examples of the state rendering basic democratic principles ineffectual. One prime example of this curtailment is the arrest of noted journalist Amy Goodman at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in St. Paul, Minnesota. Goodman, wellknown as the host of Democracy Now! was covering the RNC when she received word that police were arresting two of her producers who were covering a group of protestors outside. Goodman raced to help her colleagues and the police arrested her as well. Goodman later recounted the event: “They seriously manhandled me and handcuffed my hands behind my back. The top ID [at the convention] is to get on the floor and the Secret Service ripped that off me. I had my Democracy Now! ID too. I was clearly a reporter” (Watt 26). Goodman was not the only reporter arrested during the 2008 RNC; she was one of 40. Two weeks after her arrest, city officials of St. Paul dropped the charges against Goodman and the other 40 journalists. The dismissal of the charges was seen as a victory for the freedom of the press. St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman said, “This decision [to drop the charges] reflects the values we have in St. Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press” (Havens 2). In response, Goodman said, “It’s good that these false charges have finally been dropped, but we never should have been arrested to begin with. These violent and unlawful arrests disrupted our work and had a chilling effect on the reporting of dissent. Freedom of the press is also about the public’s right to know what is happening on their streets...” (Goodman). Goodman’s response elucidates the true gravitas of the situation: the removal of the press from the public for specious reasons denies the American people the information that determines awareness of the political process. But we are concerned with a larger problem. Although the prosecutors eventually dropped the charges against Goodman,which means that the freedom of the press “triumphed,” during the RNC there was both direct and indirect censorship. Directly, Goodman’s three hours of incarceration kept her from serving, in her words, as a “critical watchdog in a democratic society” for a short, but critical, period of time during the four day convention (Linthicum). There was indirect censorship in that the focus of news coverage shifted from the convention to the issue of Goodman’s arrest. For although Democracy Now! continued to report on the RNC, Goodman and her detention became a major topic of news in terms of her journalistic rights under the First Amendment. Therefore, the press was censored by two means: first, members of the press were unable to cover the convention during their detainment and second, public discourse shifted from a focus on the events of the convention that the press corps were trying to cover to a discu
{"title":"Silencing Spectacles: Freedom of Speech on Trial","authors":"David R. Dewberry, Catherine L. Langford","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556388","url":null,"abstract":"The 2008 presidential election is a historic example of democracy in action. The presidential campaign, however, also provides unfortunate examples of the state rendering basic democratic principles ineffectual. One prime example of this curtailment is the arrest of noted journalist Amy Goodman at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in St. Paul, Minnesota. Goodman, wellknown as the host of Democracy Now! was covering the RNC when she received word that police were arresting two of her producers who were covering a group of protestors outside. Goodman raced to help her colleagues and the police arrested her as well. Goodman later recounted the event: “They seriously manhandled me and handcuffed my hands behind my back. The top ID [at the convention] is to get on the floor and the Secret Service ripped that off me. I had my Democracy Now! ID too. I was clearly a reporter” (Watt 26). Goodman was not the only reporter arrested during the 2008 RNC; she was one of 40. Two weeks after her arrest, city officials of St. Paul dropped the charges against Goodman and the other 40 journalists. The dismissal of the charges was seen as a victory for the freedom of the press. St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman said, “This decision [to drop the charges] reflects the values we have in St. Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press” (Havens 2). In response, Goodman said, “It’s good that these false charges have finally been dropped, but we never should have been arrested to begin with. These violent and unlawful arrests disrupted our work and had a chilling effect on the reporting of dissent. Freedom of the press is also about the public’s right to know what is happening on their streets...” (Goodman). Goodman’s response elucidates the true gravitas of the situation: the removal of the press from the public for specious reasons denies the American people the information that determines awareness of the political process. But we are concerned with a larger problem. Although the prosecutors eventually dropped the charges against Goodman,which means that the freedom of the press “triumphed,” during the RNC there was both direct and indirect censorship. Directly, Goodman’s three hours of incarceration kept her from serving, in her words, as a “critical watchdog in a democratic society” for a short, but critical, period of time during the four day convention (Linthicum). There was indirect censorship in that the focus of news coverage shifted from the convention to the issue of Goodman’s arrest. For although Democracy Now! continued to report on the RNC, Goodman and her detention became a major topic of news in terms of her journalistic rights under the First Amendment. Therefore, the press was censored by two means: first, members of the press were unable to cover the convention during their detainment and second, public discourse shifted from a focus on the events of the convention that the press corps were trying to cover to a discu","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130386031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1080/08997225.2012.10556383
M. Bezanson
{"title":"Snyder v. Phelps: Protecting the Process of Persuasion","authors":"M. Bezanson","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556383","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123928538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1080/08997225.2012.10556379
Susan Balter-Reitz, M. Bruner
Despite being one of the most anticipated and commented upon cases on the 2010 Supreme Court docket, the Snyder v. Phelps decision surprised many court watchers. The Court, in an 8-1 decision, resoundingly supported Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to protest. There were a number of unusual aspects to the Court’s announcement of the decision: the relatively early release date in March, the lack of consideration, due to a technicality, of the “epic,” a hatefilled and despicable posting on the church’s website, and the near-unanimous finding. Most critics have been surprised by the absence of issues in the decision, especially the majority’s denial of relief under the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). However, it is the presence of the public concern test as the decision rule in this case, and its use, that marks this case as most unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion rests on a test that was incarnated in a public employee speech case and then refined in a libel case. Snyder v. Phelps marks the first time that the public concern test has been used in a protest case and its invocation is troubling on a number of levels. First, the heritage of the test is problematic: the public concern test, first outlined in Connick v Myers, codified the largely value-driven notion that speech with political implications deserves more protection than speech dealing with private matters, and this creates a content-based paradigm that lacks clear contours (Estlund). Second, the public/private speech distinction developed in Snyder creates a tautology (or circular definition) of public concern that rewards Westboro’s outrageousness at the expense of reasoned discourse in the public sphere.
尽管斯奈德诉菲尔普斯案是2010年最高法院案件中最受期待和评论最多的案件之一，但该案的判决令许多法院观察家感到意外。最高法院以8票赞成、1票反对的结果，坚决支持弗雷德·菲尔普斯和威斯特布路浸信会的抗议权利。法院宣布这项裁决有很多不同寻常的地方:相对提前的3月发布日期，由于技术上的原因，缺乏对“史诗”的考虑，教会网站上充满仇恨和卑鄙的帖子，以及几乎一致的裁决。大多数批评人士对判决中缺乏问题感到惊讶，尤其是多数人拒绝在故意造成情绪困扰的侵权行为(IIED)下给予救济。然而，正是公众关注测试作为本案的裁决规则的存在，以及它的使用，标志着本案的不寻常之处。首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨(John Roberts)的多数意见基于一项测试，该测试体现在公共雇员言论案中，然后在诽谤案中得到完善。斯奈德诉菲尔普斯案标志着公众关注测试首次被用于抗议案件，它的使用在很多层面上都令人不安。首先，该测试的传统是有问题的:Connick v Myers案中首次概述的公众关注测试，编纂了一个主要由价值驱动的概念，即带有政治含义的言论比涉及私人事务的言论更值得保护，这创造了一个基于内容的范式，缺乏明确的轮廓(Estlund)。其次，在斯奈德案中发展的公共/私人言论的区别创造了一种公共关注的同义反复(或循环定义)，以牺牲公共领域的理性话语为代价，奖励威斯特布路的暴行。
{"title":"Public Concern as Spectacle: The Problematic Decision of Snyder v. Phelps","authors":"Susan Balter-Reitz, M. Bruner","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556379","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556379","url":null,"abstract":"Despite being one of the most anticipated and commented upon cases on the 2010 Supreme Court docket, the Snyder v. Phelps decision surprised many court watchers. The Court, in an 8-1 decision, resoundingly supported Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to protest. There were a number of unusual aspects to the Court’s announcement of the decision: the relatively early release date in March, the lack of consideration, due to a technicality, of the “epic,” a hatefilled and despicable posting on the church’s website, and the near-unanimous finding. Most critics have been surprised by the absence of issues in the decision, especially the majority’s denial of relief under the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). However, it is the presence of the public concern test as the decision rule in this case, and its use, that marks this case as most unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion rests on a test that was incarnated in a public employee speech case and then refined in a libel case. Snyder v. Phelps marks the first time that the public concern test has been used in a protest case and its invocation is troubling on a number of levels. First, the heritage of the test is problematic: the public concern test, first outlined in Connick v Myers, codified the largely value-driven notion that speech with political implications deserves more protection than speech dealing with private matters, and this creates a content-based paradigm that lacks clear contours (Estlund). Second, the public/private speech distinction developed in Snyder creates a tautology (or circular definition) of public concern that rewards Westboro’s outrageousness at the expense of reasoned discourse in the public sphere.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"8 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128308973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1080/08997225.2012.10556381
Dale A. Herbeck
Reverend Fred W. Phelps, Sr. and the members of his Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, are “fire and brimstone” fundamentalists who believe that God hates all homosexuals. Because of our national toleration of homosexuality, Phelps and his followers believe God is punishing the United States, particularly U.S. military forces. The Westboro Baptist Church has voiced this position on the church’s web site and during protests at funerals held for prominent people and for United States servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a direct result of these activities, the federal government and 45 states have adopted laws that restrict or prohibit protests at funeral services or internment ceremonies. “The scope of state activity,” Stephen R. McAllister observes, “speaks volumes about the American public’s reaction to the funeral picketers” (579). The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of funeral picketing laws in Snyder v. Phelps. This case, brought by a distraught father named Albert Snyder, involved a lawsuit filed under Maryland law alleging intrusion on seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps, holding that the First Amendment shielded the picketers from tort liability because of the political nature of the issues that their protest raised (1216-1217). Since Maryland did not have a law against picketing at funerals when the Westboro Baptist Church protested at the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, the Justices had “no occasion to consider” whether such a law would be a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction under standards previously announced by the Court (1218). Because Snyder’s civil suit ultimately failed, these picketing laws take on new significance because they may offer the best means for federal, state, and local authorities to limit the expressive activities of Reverend Phelps and his followers. This analysis briefly considers whether such statutes unconstitutionally restrict freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
弗雷德·w·菲尔普斯牧师和他在堪萨斯州托皮卡的威斯特布路浸信会的成员是“火与硫磺”的原教旨主义者，他们相信上帝憎恨所有的同性恋者。由于我们国家对同性恋的宽容，菲尔普斯和他的追随者认为上帝在惩罚美国，尤其是美国军队。威斯特布路浸信会在其网站上表达了这一立场，并在为知名人士和在伊拉克和阿富汗阵亡的美国军人举行葬礼的抗议活动中表达了这一立场。这些活动的直接结果是，联邦政府和45个州通过了限制或禁止在葬礼或入殓仪式上抗议的法律。“国家活动的范围，”Stephen R. McAllister观察到，“充分说明了美国公众对葬礼纠察队的反应”(579)。最高法院没有对斯奈德诉菲尔普斯案中葬礼纠察法的合宪性作出裁决。这起案件是由一位名叫阿尔伯特·斯奈德(Albert Snyder)的悲痛欲禁的父亲提起的，他根据马里兰州的法律提起诉讼，指控他侵犯隐居生活、故意造成精神痛苦和民事阴谋。最高法院以8比1的裁决支持菲尔普斯，认为第一修正案保护纠集者免于侵权责任，因为他们抗议所提出的问题具有政治性质(1216-1217)。当威斯特布路浸信会(Westboro Baptist Church)在下士马修·斯奈德(Matthew Snyder)的葬礼上进行抗议时，马里兰州并没有禁止在葬礼上进行示威的法律，法官们“没有理由考虑”根据法院先前宣布的标准，这样的法律是否会是合理的时间、地点或方式限制(1218)。因为斯奈德的民事诉讼最终失败了，这些纠集法有了新的意义，因为它们可能为联邦、州和地方当局提供了限制菲尔普斯牧师及其追随者表达活动的最佳手段。本分析简要地考虑这些法规是否违宪地限制了第一修正案所保障的言论自由。
{"title":"Beyond Snyder v. Phelps: Free Speech and Funeral Picketing Laws","authors":"Dale A. Herbeck","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556381","url":null,"abstract":"Reverend Fred W. Phelps, Sr. and the members of his Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, are “fire and brimstone” fundamentalists who believe that God hates all homosexuals. Because of our national toleration of homosexuality, Phelps and his followers believe God is punishing the United States, particularly U.S. military forces. The Westboro Baptist Church has voiced this position on the church’s web site and during protests at funerals held for prominent people and for United States servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a direct result of these activities, the federal government and 45 states have adopted laws that restrict or prohibit protests at funeral services or internment ceremonies. “The scope of state activity,” Stephen R. McAllister observes, “speaks volumes about the American public’s reaction to the funeral picketers” (579). The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of funeral picketing laws in Snyder v. Phelps. This case, brought by a distraught father named Albert Snyder, involved a lawsuit filed under Maryland law alleging intrusion on seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps, holding that the First Amendment shielded the picketers from tort liability because of the political nature of the issues that their protest raised (1216-1217). Since Maryland did not have a law against picketing at funerals when the Westboro Baptist Church protested at the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, the Justices had “no occasion to consider” whether such a law would be a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction under standards previously announced by the Court (1218). Because Snyder’s civil suit ultimately failed, these picketing laws take on new significance because they may offer the best means for federal, state, and local authorities to limit the expressive activities of Reverend Phelps and his followers. This analysis briefly considers whether such statutes unconstitutionally restrict freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"148 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128446010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1080/08997225.2012.10556385
L. Phillips
Whether language has that tendency [to be defamatory] depends, among other factors, upon the temper of the times, the current of contemporary public opinion, with the result that words, harmless in one age, in one community, may be highly damaging to reputation at another time or in different place (Mencher v. Chesley 100).
语言是否具有这种[诽谤的]倾向，除其他因素外，还取决于时代的脾气，当代公众舆论的潮流，其结果是，在一个时代、一个社区无害的词语，可能在另一个时代或不同的地方对声誉造成极大的损害(Mencher v. Chesley 100)。
{"title":"Libelous Language Post Lawrence: Accusations of Homosexuality as Defamation","authors":"L. Phillips","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556385","url":null,"abstract":"Whether language has that tendency [to be defamatory] depends, among other factors, upon the temper of the times, the current of contemporary public opinion, with the result that words, harmless in one age, in one community, may be highly damaging to reputation at another time or in different place (Mencher v. Chesley 100).","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122482774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1080/08997225.2012.10556391
Dale A. Herbeck
1 Mark Klyn, “Forward,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), ii. 2 Robert M. O’Neil, “Survey of the Law of Freedom of Speech, 1961-1962,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 1-24. 3 Robert M. O’Neil, “Teaching Freedom of Speech: Two Approaches,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 25-40. 4 Arthur Hough and Michael Fischer, “Freedom of Speech on the College Campus: Two Current Problems,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 41-46. 5 “Selected Bibliography on Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 47-65. 6 Robert M. O’Neil, “Annual Survey of the Law: Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly and Association, 1962-1963,” Free Speech Yearbook 2 (1963), 1-16. 7 “Bibliography of Freedom of Speech and Press, 1962-1963,” Free Speech Yearbook 2 (1963), 17-20. 8 Gerald M. Messner and Nancy Shingler Messner, “Freedom of Speech and the Teaching of Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 2 (1963), 21-32. 9 Robert M. O’Neil, “Annual Survey of the Law: Freedoms of Expression in the Courts, 19631964,” Free Speech Yearbook 3 (1964), 1-21. 10 Robert M. O’Neil, “Bibliography on Freedoms of Expression, 1963-64,” Free Speech Yearbook 3 (1964), 22-25. 11 Franklyn S. Haiman, “Some Reflections on the Teaching of Freedom of Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 3 (1964), 26-30. 12 Robert M. O’Neil, “Annual Survey of the Law: The First Amendment in the Courts, 19641965,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 1-17. 13 Robert M. O’Neil, “Bibliography on Freedoms of Expression, 1964-1965,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 18-22. 14 Alvin Goldberg and Gail Myers, “Empirical and Experimental Research Opportunities in Free Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 23-25. 15 Walter Terris, “Free Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 36-45.
1 Mark Klyn，“前进”，言论自由年鉴1 (1962)，ii。2罗伯特·m·欧尼尔:《言论自由法述评:1961-1962》，《言论自由年鉴》1962年第1期，第1-24页。3罗伯特·m·奥尼尔:“教育言论自由:两种方法”，《言论自由年鉴》第1期(1962年)，第25-40页。4 Arthur Hough和Michael Fischer，“大学校园的言论自由:两个当前的问题”，《言论自由年鉴》第1期(1962)，第41-46页。5“言论、出版和集会自由参考书目”，《言论自由年鉴》第1期(1962年)，第47-65页。6 Robert M. O 'Neil，“法律年度调查:言论、新闻、集会和结社自由:1962-1963”，《言论自由年鉴》第2期(1963)，第1-16页。7《言论和新闻自由书目，1962-1963》，《言论自由年鉴2》(1963)，第17-20页。8 Gerald M. Messner和Nancy Shingler Messner，“言论自由和言论教学”，《言论自由年鉴》第2期(1963)，第21-32页。9 Robert M. O 'Neil，“法律年度调查:法院中的言论自由，1963 - 1964”，《言论自由年鉴》第3期(1964)，第1-21页。[10]欧强，“言论自由的参考文献:1963-64”，《言论自由年鉴》第3期(1964)，第22-25页。11海曼:“对言论自由教学的几点思考”，《言论自由年鉴》第3期(1964)，第26-30页。12 Robert M. O 'Neil，“法律年度调查:法院的第一修正案，1964 - 1965”，《言论自由年鉴》第4期(1965)，第1-17页。13罗伯特·m·欧尼尔，“言论自由的参考书目:1964-1965”，《言论自由年鉴》第4期(1965)，第18-22页。14阿尔文·戈德堡、盖尔·迈尔斯:“言论自由的实证与实验研究机会”，《言论自由年鉴》1965年第4期，第23-25页。15 Walter Terris，“言论自由”，《言论自由年鉴》4(1965)，第36-45页。
{"title":"Index to the Free Speech Yearbook Volumes 1 (1962) to 45 (2011)","authors":"Dale A. Herbeck","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556391","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556391","url":null,"abstract":"1 Mark Klyn, “Forward,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), ii. 2 Robert M. O’Neil, “Survey of the Law of Freedom of Speech, 1961-1962,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 1-24. 3 Robert M. O’Neil, “Teaching Freedom of Speech: Two Approaches,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 25-40. 4 Arthur Hough and Michael Fischer, “Freedom of Speech on the College Campus: Two Current Problems,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 41-46. 5 “Selected Bibliography on Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 47-65. 6 Robert M. O’Neil, “Annual Survey of the Law: Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly and Association, 1962-1963,” Free Speech Yearbook 2 (1963), 1-16. 7 “Bibliography of Freedom of Speech and Press, 1962-1963,” Free Speech Yearbook 2 (1963), 17-20. 8 Gerald M. Messner and Nancy Shingler Messner, “Freedom of Speech and the Teaching of Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 2 (1963), 21-32. 9 Robert M. O’Neil, “Annual Survey of the Law: Freedoms of Expression in the Courts, 19631964,” Free Speech Yearbook 3 (1964), 1-21. 10 Robert M. O’Neil, “Bibliography on Freedoms of Expression, 1963-64,” Free Speech Yearbook 3 (1964), 22-25. 11 Franklyn S. Haiman, “Some Reflections on the Teaching of Freedom of Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 3 (1964), 26-30. 12 Robert M. O’Neil, “Annual Survey of the Law: The First Amendment in the Courts, 19641965,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 1-17. 13 Robert M. O’Neil, “Bibliography on Freedoms of Expression, 1964-1965,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 18-22. 14 Alvin Goldberg and Gail Myers, “Empirical and Experimental Research Opportunities in Free Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 23-25. 15 Walter Terris, “Free Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 36-45.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121285653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1080/08997225.2012.10556382
Cindy Simmons
{"title":"The Snyder v. Phelps Ruling: Narrow, and in Keeping with First Amendment Precedent","authors":"Cindy Simmons","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556382","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122442944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1080/08997225.2012.10556378
C. Smith
(2012). Snyder v. Phelps: The Problem of Context. Free Speech Yearbook: Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 3-9.
(2012)。斯奈德诉菲尔普斯案:语境问题。《言论自由年鉴》:第46卷第1期，第3-9页。
{"title":"Snyder v. Phelps: The Problem of Context","authors":"C. Smith","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556378","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556378","url":null,"abstract":"(2012). Snyder v. Phelps: The Problem of Context. Free Speech Yearbook: Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 3-9.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121536625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：