562 U.S. 443 (2011)
Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in action in Iraq.1 His father, Albert Snyder, arranged for the funeral to be held in Westminster, Maryland.2 Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, an unincorporated association founded by Fred Phelps, learned of the funeral through local newspapers and decided to picket it to communicate their belief that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality.3
On the day of the funeral, Westboro members displayed placards on public land approximately 1,000 feet from the church where the service was held.4 The signs included messages such as "God Hates the USA," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Pope in Hell," "Priests Rape Boys," "You’re Going to Hell," and "God Hates Fags."5 The picketing took place for about 30 minutes before the funeral began.6 The funeral procession passed within 200 to 300 feet of the picketers.7 Church members also posted an online "epic" that discussed Matthew Snyder’s funeral and criticized his parents.8
Albert Snyder filed a diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against Fred Phelps, his daughters, and the Westboro Baptist Church.9 The suit alleged claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.10 A jury found for Snyder and awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.11
The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $2.1 million but left the verdict otherwise intact.12 The Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that Westboro’s statements were protected by the First Amendment.13 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the First Amendment shields the church members from tort liability for their picketing speech.14
Whether the First Amendment shields the church members from tort liability for their picketing speech?15
The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as a defense in state tort claims, including claims for IIED.16 Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro 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.17 Speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.18
Yes. The picketing was conducted at a public place along a public street.19 It concerned a public issue as shown by the placards displayed on public land approximately 1,000 feet from the church where Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder's funeral was held.20 The content of the signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of purely private concern.21 The messages addressed the political and moral conduct of the United States, the fate of the Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy.22 The context of the speech does not transform the nature of Westboro’s speech.23 The speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern.24 The fact that it may have been viewed as outrageous is not dispositive.25
That the speech was outrageous or offensive does not deprive it of protection.26 The jury instruction on outrageousness is a highly malleable standard with an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views.27 Westboro’s speech was not directed at Albert Snyder in a personal way.28 The protest was conducted at a public place on a matter of public concern.29 The protest was not so private as to remove it from public concern.30
The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.31
Related opinions on this issue
I agree with the Court that the First Amendment protects the speech in this case.32 I write separately to note that I do not believe that the Court’s decision today alters the principles set forth in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., or Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. Those cases involved defamatory statements made in the context of private disputes.33 This case involves speech on a matter of public concern at a public place.34
The principles of those cases are not implicated here.35
Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.36 Albert Snyder is not a public figure.37 He is a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in action in Iraq.38
Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of every parent who loses a child in combat to bury his son in peace.39 But members of the Westboro Baptist Church would not allow him that peace.40 They entered the public forum to attack Matthew Snyder and his family at a time of maximum vulnerability.41
They did so in a manner calculated to inflict severe emotional injury on the Snyder family.42 The Court holds that the First Amendment bars Mr. Snyder from recovering for the intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by the Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing at his son’s funeral.43 I cannot agree.44
Whether the speech was on a matter of public concern as determined by its content, form, and context?45
To determine whether speech is of public or private concern, this Court must independently examine the content, form, and context of the speech as revealed by the whole record.46 In considering content, form, and context, no factor is dispositive, and it is necessary to evaluate all aspects of the speech.47
Yes. The content of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to public, rather than private, matters.48 The placards highlighted issues of public import including the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of the Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy.49 Westboro conveyed its views on those issues in a manner designed to reach as broad a public audience as possible.50
The context of the speech cannot by itself transform the nature of Westboro’s speech.51 The signs reflected Westboro’s condemnation of much in modern society.52 It cannot be argued that Westboro’s use of speech on public issues was in any way contrived to insulate a personal attack on Albert Snyder from liability.53 Westboro had been actively engaged in speaking on the subjects addressed in its picketing long before it became aware of Matthew Snyder.54
There can be no serious claim that the picketing did not represent Westboro’s honestly held beliefs on public issues.55
The speech was on a matter of public concern as determined by its content, form, and context.56
Whether the First Amendment bars recovery for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in these circumstances?57
Even protected speech is not immune from every tort claim.58 The state-law tort claims for intrusion upon seclusion and IIED fail because the speech was on a matter of public concern and was not directed at Snyder in a personal way.59 The protest was conducted in a public place, and it concerned a public issue.60
Yes. Snyder argues that he was a member of a captive audience at his son’s funeral.61 The captive audience doctrine should not be expanded to the circumstances here.62 Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service.63
Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers’ signs.64 There is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself.65 Because the First Amendment bars Snyder from recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress or intrusion upon seclusion, Snyder also cannot recover for civil conspiracy based on those torts.66
The First Amendment bars recovery for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in these circumstances.67
Related opinions on this issue
The First Amendment does not protect all speech.68 It does not protect defamation, true threats, or fighting words.69 It does not protect speech that intrudes upon the privacy of a funeral.70
The picketing in this case was not speech on a matter of public concern directed at the public at large.71 It was a personal attack on Matthew Snyder and his family.72 The signs read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "You’re Going to Hell," and "God Hates Fags."73
These signs were not directed at the military or the country in general.74 They were directed at Matthew Snyder and his family.75 The location of the picketing does not insulate the speech from liability.76
The picketers chose the funeral of Matthew Snyder to publicize their views.77 They did so to maximize the emotional distress inflicted on the Snyder family.78 The jury found that the Westboro Baptist Church’s conduct was outrageous and that it caused severe emotional distress to Albert Snyder.79
That finding is supported by the record.80 The First Amendment does not require us to allow the Westboro Baptist Church to inflict severe emotional injury on the Snyder family without consequence.81 I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.82