www.LC.org

Washington, DC – This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving individuals who protested a funeral more than 1,000 feet from the location. In Snyder v. Phelps, Albert Snyder, who did not actually see the protest prior to the funeral but was later told about it, filed suit seeking monetary damages from the Fred Phelps family for protesting at the funeral of his son, a fallen war hero. Although Liberty Counsel expressly condemns the offensive tactics employed by the Phelpses and deplores the content of their rhetoric, Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in support of the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans that could be affected by the outcome of this case.

Phelps and his family have been protesting for years and, in fact, protested the funeral of the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, with whom Mathew Staver was a personal friend. Although Liberty Counsel recognizes that such protests and picketing events are offensive and in poor taste, Liberty Counsel also recognizes that the bad facts of this case could negatively affect the legitimate free speech rights of law-abiding Americans. This case could give a veto right to anyone who claims the speech of another is “offensive.” Today it is the offensive speech of the Phelpses, and tomorrow it could be religious, pro-life or pro-family speech, or any other speech for that matter.

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The Supreme Court must not use the bad facts of this case to restrict legitimate free speech rights of law-abiding citizens. The First Amendment does not grant to anyone a veto right over another person’s speech, simply because it might be offensive. Free speech needs breathing room. I would rather tolerate a person’s offensive speech than be silenced by the force of law.”

Receive our Liberty Alerts via RSS 

Find us on Facebook

Tweet this Press Release or follow us on .

Join Freedom Federation   and view us on