“Thank God for Dead Soldiers” vs. “British soldiers go to hell”

3 March 2011 by

Snyder v. Phelps (09-751), United States Supreme Court – Read judgment

A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, in which it upheld the rights of a radical anti-gay Christian group to protest at military funerals, provides a useful opportunity to compare free speech protections here to those provided over the pond.

By way of comparison, five men recently failed in a challenge to their public order criminal convictions for protesting with similar signs at a homecoming parade for British soldiers. What does this say about our respective free speech protections?

The US court upheld by an 8-1 majority the First Amendment right to free speech in respect of a Baptist congregation who had for 20 years been protesting at military funerals to communicate its belief that God hates the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in America’s military.

The picketers peacefully displayed their signs—stating, for example, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “America is Doomed,” “Priests Rape Boys,” and “You’re Going to Hell”—for about 30 minutes before the funeral began.

Fred Phelps, who founded the church, and six Westboro Baptist parishioners picketed the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq in the line of duty. The picketing took place on public land around 1,000 feet from the funeral, in accordance with guidance from local police.

Synder’s father filed an action in tort (civil wrong) against the protesters. In other words, he used the civil courts to sue the congregation for financial damages. A jury held Westboro liable for millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.

The focus of the court was on whether the speech was of public or private concern. If the former, the protesters would be protected under the First Amendment from being held liable for its speech in a civil action. Although the dividing line between private and public concern is unclear, the court has previously said that speech is of public concern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.

The court held that, as hurtful as the speech was, it was still protected under the Constitution. First,

Westboro conducted its picketing peacefully on matters of public concern at a public space adjacent to a public street…

This was important as not all speech is equally permissible in all places at all times. But the protesters had been directed to a particular space by local law enforcement, and had complied with that direction. The state now has a law against funeral picketing, but did not at that time.

Synder argued that he was a captive audience to the protests (known as “the captive audience doctrine”). The court disagreed:

Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service. Snyder could see no more than the tops of the signs when driving to the funeral. And there is no indica- tion that the picketing in any way interfered with the funeral service itself. We decline to expand the captive audience doctrine to the circumstances presented here.

The court went on to hold that the speech was indeed of public concern, even if hurtful to many people:

Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. … 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.

Finally, the fact that the speech was hurtful was not enough to take it outside of First Amendment protection. In fact, its hurtfulness was part of the reason that it should be protected:

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.

Go compare

How does this compare with our own recent decision (see Isabel McArdle’s post), in which the High Court ruled that the criminal prosecution of a group of people who had shouted slogans, including, “burn in hell”“baby killers” and “rapists” at a parade of British soldiers, was not a breach of their right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

The first thing to say is that the cases are not directly comparable. The jurisdictions are significantly different and the protecting instruments – the Constitution there and the Human Rights Act here – are quite different too. Moreover, the US case involved a civil action against the protesters where as the UK case concerned a criminal prosecution under hate speech rules. And factually the cases were different, particularly in relation to the proximity of the protesters to the people being protested against.

But, notwithstanding that lawerly proviso, the similarities are illuminating. Both cases involved the emotive issue of what most of society would consider unsavoury radicals chanting hate slogans aimed at soldiers.

In the UK case, five men were convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

In that case, as in the US case, the protesters met with police beforehand and management of the protest was discussed. On the day, the protesters shouted “British soldiers go to hell”“terrorists” and “cowards”. The men were arrested on the following day, on the basis of video footage of the protest.

They argued that they had complied with directions from the police and there was no evidence the police warned them to cease chanting the slogans. But, as the court ruled:

…dialogue [with police] can only help to reduce the risk of untoward events but it cannot guarantee in advance that the words and conduct of protesters will not contravene the law.

Moreover,

If the line between legitimate freedom of expression and a threat to public order has indeed been crossed, freedom of speech will not have been impaired by “ruling …out” threatening, abusive or insulting speech.

Therein lies the difference. The simple fact is that although our freedom of expression is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention, that article is subject to a number of qualifications, and as such can be restricted in the interest of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime. The UK government has decided to restrict political expression with criminal laws against hate speech. And the exercise of this law is generally considered by the courts to be compliant with Article 10.

This means that free speech here is far more constrained than in the United States, where even “hate speech” is generally protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution (see my post on the Congressman Giffords shooting).

In the US, there remains only a very limited list of forms of expression which are not protected by the First Amendment: obscenity, child pornography, speech that incites imminent danger, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Although the United States does have laws against hate speech, as compared to the relatively low bar of the “likely to cause” English test, in the US speech must incite imminent violence. This is difficult to prove and as such has led to few successful prosecutions.

Hating others’ views

One of the fascinating aspects of this comparison is the major point made by the US court to the effect that a jury composed of members of the public should not be permitted to rule on cases involving public speech. The rationale is clear. By definition, if speech is publicly unpopular, a jury is likely to take a dim view of it. This could hardly be better demonstrated than protesters chanting their hateful views at the funeral of a local hero. But history has shown that societies lose out when speech is regulated by the court of public opinion.

It may be said that this is quite different to UK hate laws, which have been passed by Parliament with careful consideration of its responsibilities to public safety and  free speech. But this assumes that Parliament is immune to the public mood in relation to unpopular views. And it is difficult to see how 5 men chanting slogans at a parade can properly be said to have constituted a threat to public safety. What they really did wrong was say things which most people disagree with and would be upset by.

The lesson seems to be that, to paraphrase the US court, as nations we have charted different courses. In light of these protest cases, it is difficult to argue that hurtful speech on public issues in the UK is properly free, and that public debate is not being stifled.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

4 comments


  1. Sean Fear says:

    An excellent article. Thank you.

    On balance, I think the US has it right. Organisations like Westborough Baptist Church are rightly reviled, precisely because they are able to state what they really believe.

  2. val says:

    Our true God will not throw any child of his into a hell fire. Satan has deceived the whole world Rev 12:9 until a woman delivers Rev 12:5, 13 the true word John 1:1 to the world. Prophecy is fulfilled and is going to the world from the wilderness Rev 12:6 at http://thegoodtale.blogspot.com.
    It never entered the heart or mind of God to do such a thing as throw any child for any sin into a fire Jer 7:31, Jer 19:5. Soldiers when they die their body returns to the earth and their spirit returns to God who gave it Eccl 12:7 to await their resurrection to eternal life John 3:16. All will believe in their own order 1 Cor 15:23. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess Rom 14:11. God created Isa 45:7 us all to be against him Rom 8:7 to learn the knowledge of good and evil Gen 3:22 to become a god Ps 82:6. Satan will not win even one child of God. God has all the power, none will perish for eternity. Greater love hath no man then that he lay down his life for his friends John 15:13 Soldiers are risking their lives against other soldiers trying to establish a better world. King David was never punished for all of the soldiers he killed. Everything that happens during earth school is for an eternal reason.
    God (love) never fails.

  3. Julia says:

    I think it’s fine to express for someone to express there opinion, but to express a hateful opinion at a funeral is just wrong. If someone is going to express the opinion they have to be respectful towards the other opinion. And going to a man’s funeral and saying “I hate you. I’m glad you died,” is the most unrespectful thing someone can do.

  4. Oedipus_Lex says:

    As a former rapist, baby-killer, terrorist, coward and candidate for a roasting south of St Peter, I personally never had a problem with five extremists screaming inane nonsense. I don’t like what they say, I don’t agree with the content or the way the message has been conveyed but I have always held the view that this is the sign of a mature society: the ability to withstand criticism and opposition from within. I remember last year writing in a similar vein about the BNP and I think Voltaire has been mis-quoted saying something not a million miles from the point I am trying to make.

    I just hope this judgment combined with a British Bill of Rights doesn’t herald a new era of tabloid politics and law.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration Immigration/Extradition immunity India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insurance intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interim remedies international international criminal court international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internship inuit investigation investigative duty Iran Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraq War Ireland islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v UK Ken Clarke Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College koran burning Labour Lady Hale LASPO Law Pod UK Law Society of Scotland legal aid legal aid cuts legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberty library closures Libya licence conditions life sentence lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Taylor luftur rahman MAGA Magna Carta Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical negligence medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental illness MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis military Milly Dowler Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder music Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience news new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London Offensive Speech oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliament square parole board pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution Personal Injury personality rights perversity PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police powers police state police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope portal possession proceedings post office power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radicalisation Radmacher Ramsgate rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg sumption super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: