Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
Freedom of SpeechSnyder 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. Review the facts of the case, the issue, the Court’s decision and consider whether or not you agree with the court’s legal reasoning. During the oral arguments, Justice Scalia questioned the applicability of the “fighting words” doctrine enunciated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942). Despite Scalia’s discussion, the doctrine was dismissed in a footnote in the majority opinion and barely mentioned in the concurring opinion. Please watch the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGeI9O0KsP4), then address the following:Find another case that utilized the “fighting words” doctrine and respond to the following:Please define and explain the doctrine. Could (or should) it have been applied in the additional case that you reviewed? 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 is the difference and/or similarity between the free speech case that you found and the Snyder v. Phelps case?
Sample Answer
The Application of the “Fighting Words” Doctrine in Free Speech Cases
The “fighting words” doctrine, established in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), allows for certain narrow restrictions on freedom of speech. This doctrine holds that speech that is likely to incite an immediate breach of peace by provoking a violent reaction is not protected under the First Amendment.
One notable case that applied the “fighting words” doctrine is Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). In this case, Paul Robert Cohen was arrested for wearing a jacket displaying the phrase “F*** the Draft” in a Los Angeles courthouse. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Cohen, stating that his speech, while offensive, did not amount to “fighting words” as it was not directed towards any individual and did not provoke an immediate violent reaction.
The application of the “fighting words” doctrine in Cohen v. California differs from its potential application in Snyder v. Phelps. In Cohen, the Court emphasized the importance of protecting offensive speech that did not directly incite violence. In contrast, in Snyder v. Phelps, the Court considered whether the Westboro Baptist Church’s protest at a funeral constituted protected speech or fell under an exception like “fighting words.”
While the “fighting words” doctrine was discussed during oral arguments in Snyder v. Phelps, it was ultimately dismissed in a footnote in the majority opinion, indicating that the Court did not find it applicable to the case at hand. The Court’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps focused on the broader principles of free speech and public discourse rather than narrowly applying the “fighting words” doctrine.
In considering whether the “fighting words” doctrine could have been applied in Snyder v. Phelps or whether a different analysis could have led to a different outcome, it is essential to recognize the complexities of balancing free speech rights with other societal interests. The Court’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps highlighted the importance of protecting even highly offensive speech in public forums to maintain robust debate and discourse.
Ultimately, the difference between the free speech case in Cohen v. California and Snyder v. Phelps lies in the context and nature of the speech involved. While Cohen involved an individual’s expression of political dissent through clothing, Snyder v. Phelps dealt with a controversial protest at a sensitive event. Both cases underscore the ongoing tension between protecting free speech and addressing potentially harmful or offensive expressions.
In conclusion, while the “fighting words” doctrine has played a role in shaping free speech jurisprudence, its application is limited and context-specific. The Court’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps reflects a broader commitment to safeguarding robust public discourse even in the face of deeply offensive speech, illustrating the dynamic and evolving nature of First Amendment protections in the United States.
