Explore BrainMass

Albert Snyder v Westboro Baptist Church

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Please provide a summary of Judge Alito's argument and then give your opinion as to whether he is right or wrong.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 17, 2018, 11:51 am ad1c9bdddf


Solution Preview

Reasoning about law - Albert Snyder v Westboro Baptist Church
Please provide a summary of Judge Alito's argument and then give your opinion as to whether he is right or wrong.

The majority opinion held that the Westboro Baptist Church could not be held liable because their "speech" was protected under the First Amendment. This is true because there message was directed at public events, held on public land and followed the laws and directives of local government and law enforcement.

Judge Alito bases his dissent on his opinion that the speech of Westboro Baptist Church was private in nature. He claims that it was directed specifically at Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder and that the public aspects of the speech were conducted as a smoke screen to hide the personal nature of the attacks and also that the content of what they ...

Solution Summary

This solution examines the Albert Snyder v Westboro Baptist Church case and ruling. This case highlights issues of religions freedom, hate speech, and the limits to individual rights. Over 550 words of original text along with the original ruling and court case. Specific attention is paid to Judge Alito's ruling.

Similar Posting

Law Case Studies

I need help with the following scenarios/questions.

1. Petit v. City of Chicago - Just to show you how quickly law evolves, a June 29, 2009 opinion by the Supreme Court has rendered our textbook obsolete before you ever start using it. First, look up the Petit case in your textbook. On what basis did the court conclude that the use of race in these promotion decisions was "narrowly tailored?" Next, look for the Ricci v. DeStefano case opinion. The current link is http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1428.ZO.html. What is the rationale for the different results in those two cases? Which case do you agree with? Why?

2. There is a perception among some that affirmative action results in quotas and reverse discrimination. Discuss the justification for affirmative action and whether affirmative action indeed results in quotas and reverse discrimination. Include your opinion.

3. Contact the Human Resource manager at your company, division, or another company. If you are in the military make a cold call to a civilian company. Explain that you are a student in the Employment Law class. Ask the manager to summarize a situation he/she has encountered regarding FMLA, national origin, or sexual orientation. Explain the background, the particular issue, and how the company resolved it. Add your evaluation of the way the situation was handled in light of your reading in the chapter.

4. The ADA creates a protected class called "qualified individuals with disabilities." Discuss what this phrase means and how one qualifies for protection.

5. Would you recommend that an employer offer domestic partner benefits? Why or why not, based on a comparison to the "traditional" arguments of offering benefits? If so, would you recommend it for all domestic partners or only same sex partners? Justify our answer using legal and business arguments, minimizing emotional arguments.

6. Employers should not ignore employees starting work early, staying beyond scheduled hours, or coming in to work on days off. In regard to the FLSA and compensable time, explain the legal rationale for having such a policy in place. Why is ignoring those behaviors a dangerous policy?

7. Should card-check procedures be allowed to determine employee's desire for union representation or only formal representation elections? What result does it favor? What is the main objection to its use? How can that objection be moderated?

8. Why should an employer avoid using global performance ratings unless they are derived by combining ratings on more specific criteria? Focus on the legal issues rather than on the HR issues.

9. Explain the elements of the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Quote the actual elements of the claim and cite your source. Try to use the "best" source for your citation. Add a follow-up sentence(s) in which you explain what that element means in practical terms. Summarize a case in which that claim was changed. What was the result? Cite any sources used.

View Full Posting Details