Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter 49 Like on Twitter View on Twitter Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter 18 Like on Twitter 53 View on Twitter Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter 62 Like on Twitter View on Twitter This website may use cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can leave if you wish. Accept Read More. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website.
Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent.
You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience. Necessary Necessary. A jury held Westboro liable for millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Westboro challenged the verdict as grossly excessive and sought judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the First Amendment fully protected its speech.
The District Court reduced the punitive damages award, but left the verdict otherwise intact. Held: The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. Falwell , U. 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.
Myers , U. Roe , U. McPherson , U. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. In considering content, form, and context, no factor is dispositive, and it is necessary to evaluate all aspects of the speech. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed on First Amendment grounds. Snyder appealed to the U. Supreme Court, which affirmed the appeals court.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. He also emphasized that the protestors conducted themselves peacefully on public streets pursuant to police directives.
Addressing the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, Roberts focused on the requirement of outrageousness.
Roberts next addressed the intrusion claim, a form of invasion of privacy. Snyder had argued that he was a captive audience to the offensive and repugnant messages of the defendants.
He also rejected the civil conspiracy claim. Roberts concluded with language that has become First Amendment lore:. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.
On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion.
0コメント