LSTD301

50 words each agree or disagree questions

Q 1.

Free Speech Fact Pattern  (Surname ending with S)
Synopsis: A gay marine couple attacked protesters resulting in the death of one and serious bodily harm of another. The protesters arrested and charged for breach of peace.
Under the fighting words doctrine, the Supreme Court outlines that “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit derived from them is overshadowed by the social interest in order and morality.”[1]   The protestors had obtained the requisite permit and were demonstrating in a City Park, using signs megaphones to state their message. The means of protest is somewhat similar to that in Snyder v. Phelps[2] only with a different result.
Does the facts constitute the application of the fighting words doctrine?
No; it does not.
(1) The NOM Protesters speech was directly related to an ongoing public issue which makes it protected, and could not be prevented as it was on public property.
(2) The Supreme Court ruled that any misbehavior may constitute a breach of the peace if it stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance, or if it molests the inhabitants in the enjoyment of peace by arousing alarm.
See: Terminiello v City of Chicago  337 U.S. 1 (69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131)
In order to prove ‘breach of peace,’ the NOM protesters would have to be in engaged in disorderly conduct such as using abusive or obscene language in a public place, resisting a lawful arrest, and trespassing or damaging property when accompanied by violence.[3]Since this was not the case, the issue of breach of peace is not applicable, as the protesters were physically attacked and were forced to defend themselves.
The protesters did not engage in any direct conversation with any person’s from the wedding party or with the wedding couple. Under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.[4]  Any speech involving homosexuality is a matter of public concern.

[1] Fighting Words | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII …. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
[2] Snyder v. Phelps, 533 F. Supp. 2d 567, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8119, 40 A.L.R.6th 735, 36 Media L. Rep. 1516 (United States District Court for the District of Maryland February 4, 2008, Decided). Retrieved from https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4RS4-K800-TXFR-11WV-00000-00&context=1516831.
[3] Encyclopedia of American Law: breach of the peace. (n.d.) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved September 19 2019 from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/breach+of+the+peace
[4] Amendment 1 Religious and political freedom., USCS Const. Amend. 1 (Current through the ratification of the 27th Amendment on May 7, 1992.). Retrieved from https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T2X2-D6RV-H374-00000-00-1&context=1516831.

Q 2.

Cornell Law School (n.d.), describes Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (No.255) that “part of c. 278 of the Public Law of Hampshire which forbids under penalty that any person shall address “any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in a street or other public place,” or “call him by any offensive or derisive name,” was construed by the Supreme Court of the State. That is by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
According to this case, the fighting words doctrine does apply to this case due to the fact that they not only had signs but also were using verbal language that was specifically directed to the same-sex couple getting married provoking a violent response. Fighting words are not protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The seventy five people that showed up to demonstrate held up signs and used verbal messages to relay “God’s Marriage, One Man + One Woman,” “Gay marriage is evil,” “America is Doomed,” Lesbian will go to hell” and “Military Dykes Die.” All of these messages were specific to LT Smith and CPT Boyd. Although Boyd and Smith did not see the signs until after their ceremony, the demonstrators had offensive derisive messages directed to the couple in attempt to incite an immediate breach of peace.
The speech of NOM should not be a protected speech under the First Amendment. Their demonstration caused violence and chaos. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures. This means that this specific group of demonstrators organize their events that directly impact/offend homosexuals. Their specific demonstration caused and ignited violence from those that were also in attendance of the ceremony. Although the comments did not specify called for physical attack, it still created an environment where violence and chaos was created.
References:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). (n.d). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568
Harshman, M. J. (2017, November 7). Fighting words. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

Q 3.

In this scenario, I do believe that the “fighting words” doctrine could apply. The fact that the signs and words that were being said enraged and enticed a part of the wedding party enough to immediately get into a physical altercation with the protesters which is what is said in this particular doctrine. However, if you just look at what happened and not the whole scenario, then anyone could just start a physical altercation in order to stop protesters and be able to take them before legal action. I believe the largest factor in this scenario would be the sign that states, “Military Dykes Die!” The protesters went through the proper channels to get a permit and they were on public ground exercising their rights to Freedom of Speech. According to the case law of Snyder v. Phelps, I would say that the protesters of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is protected by the First Amendment. The only problem is that in that case, it was deemed that when Mr. Snyder publicized his son’s funeral, he made him a public figure. How did the protesters know that this marriage was happening at that particular moment? The scenario does not state that the marriage was public knowledge or how the protesters discovered when and where this was taking place. 
Being my last name begins with a W, I will represent the members of NOM and argue that they were exercising their First Amendment rights. The case law that I would use, as addressed above would be Snyder v. Phelps. This is a very similar case in which the protesters went through the proper channels to include the police, received a permit, adhered to police instructions and were on public property. It was deemed in Snyder v. Phelps that these particular issues are of public concern and therefore protected by the First Amendment.