The Ethics Behind Siding with WBC

March 10, 2006 marked a monumental time for Maryland native Albert Snyder. Snyder’s son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder, died in a non-combat Humvee accident in Iraq 7 days prior, and the 10th was the day of the funeral. On his way to the funeral, Snyder saw the tops of picket signs, but paid no attention to them, because the sorrow he bore in his heart felt like an elephant sitting on his chest. The funeral occurred, and Albert Snyder stumbled home with tear-filled eyes and snot-filled nostrils after burying his son. Looking for an escape for the emotionally crippling world surrounding him, Snyder turned on the television. A pulse surged through his body, however, as he heard both he and his son’s names on the news. His focus immediately drew toward the TV screen, and he found out that the signs he previously ignored contained the following messages in connection with his son’s soldiers: “‘Thank God for Dead Soldiers,’ ‘Fags Doom Nations,’ ‘America is Doomed,’ ‘Priests Rape Boys,’ and ‘You’re Going to Hell.’”
Unbeknownst to Snyder, Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) received permission to lawfully gather and peacefully protest at public areas near the funeral while Snyder was coordinating the pickup and burial of his son. The picketing occurred 1000 feet, nearly three and a half football field lengths, away from the Catholic Church in Westminster where the funeral was being held. It also occurred in accordance with all guidelines and rules given to the protesters before the funeral occur. The WBC protesters also never infringed upon the funeral procession or breached onto private territory during their peaceful condemnation of gays in the military and declaration of God’s angers and hates.


After the funeral, Snyder began feeling bouts of depression that he alleged were in connection to Westboro’s protest. Whenever Snyder spent time alone, the words from slogans etched on Westboro’s protest sign (including "God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”) constantly scrolled through his mind like scores on the bottom of ESPN. There was no way for him to escape the memories of either his son’s death or his son’s funeral. These images continued to flash in Snyder’s mind, and on June 5, 2011 Albert Snyder decided to sue Westboro Baptist Church for defamation of his son, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, publication of private facts, and civil conspiracy. In October of 2007 the case went to the U.S. District court of Baltimore and, through a process riddled by appeals, landed into the laps of Chief Justice John Roberts and the other 8 justices of the supreme court.





Although it seems that the Supreme Court should have sided with Snyder when one thinks of ethical choices, the Supreme whole.” This concept diluted becomes doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of number of people. Court made not only a lawful decision by siding with Fred Phelps and WBC but the true ethical choice. According to John Stuart Mill’s principle of utility, now known as utilitarianism, one has to “seek the greatest happiness for the aggregate According to the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts:


Speech is powerful. 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. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.


Because American society highly aligns with utilitarianism when forging its subconscious code of ethics, Roberts’ sentiment makes sense. In order to protect the inalienable right of speech for all men and women, the court has to protect the inalienable right of people who use speech in an offensive and border-line abusive manner. Despite the hurtful nature of the speech’s content or the tastelessness of the speech’s context, the speech’s content was not to directly attack Matthew Snyder but rather the provide commentary on the state of religious, ethical, and political filth and corruption that America was currently in. Using utilitarianism as a basis for this decision was a great move, and ethically WBC had to win although they are the villains in this case. This victory may cause emotional and financial pain to Albert Snyder but it gives hope and power to the American public, for their First Amendment right to show political discontent,  express religious frustration, and evoke positive change through a public forum of ideas was protected and strengthened.