Please ensure you review and understand the attached Acceptable Scholarly References document.
Part 1:
Snyder v. Phelps, 462 US 443 (2011) involved members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketing at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. Please read the decision by clicking on the case name and give a summary of the facts of the case, the issue, the Court’s decision and whether or not you agree with the court’s legal reasoning. In oral argument, Justice Scalia questions the applicability of the “fighting words” doctrine enunciated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942). Despite Scalia’s discussion, the doctrine is dismissed in a footnote in the majority opinion and barely mentioned in the concurring opinion. Please watch the video and answer these questions.
Please define and explain the doctrine. Could/should it have been applied in this case? Is there another analysis that the Court could have made which would result in a different outcome? Do you agree with the outcome of this case? What other free speech cases has the Court decided and do you agree with them?
Snyder v. Phelps, 462 US 443 (2011) – https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/562/443/
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942) – https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/315us568
Part 2:
Read the Todd Patterson scenario attachment. Based on recent case law, do you think that Todd’s arguments possess any merit? Please be sure to specifically discuss recent case law United States v. Miller, Parker v. District of Columbia (2008), and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and how it affects Todd’s case.
Please note that your answers have nothing to do with your personal feelings, thoughts or experiences with these issues. Your answers are to be based purely on the law, specifically precedent set by case law.
