Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

Cite as:  562 U. S. ____ (2011) 

11 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

why  a  public  street  in  close  proximity  to  the  scene  of  a 
funeral  should  be  regarded  as  a  free-fire  zone  in  which
otherwise  actionable  verbal  attacks  are  shielded  from 
liability.  If  the  First  Amendment  permits  the  States  to 
protect  their  residents  from  the  harm  inflicted  by  such
attacks—and the Court does not hold otherwise—then the 
location  of  the  tort  should  not  be  dispositive.    A  physical 
assault  may  occur  without  trespassing;  it  is  no  defense 
that the perpetrator had “the right to be where [he was].”
See ante, at 11.  And the same should be true with respect
to  unprotected  speech.    Neither  classic  “fighting  words” 
nor  defamatory  statements  are  immunized  when  they 
occur in a public place, and there is no good reason to treat
a  verbal  assault  based  on  the  conduct  or  character  of  a 
private figure like Matthew Snyder any differently. 

One final comment about the opinion of the Court is in 
order.  The  Court  suggests  that  the  wounds  inflicted  by
vicious verbal assaults at funerals will be prevented or at 
least  mitigated  in  the  future  by  new  laws  that  restrict
picketing  within  a  specified  distance  of  a  funeral.    See 
ante,  at  10–11.    It  is  apparent,  however,  that  the  enact-
ment  of  these  laws  is  no  substitute  for  the  protection
provided  by  the  established  IIED  tort;  according  to  the
Court, the verbal attacks that severely wounded petitioner 
in this case complied with the new Maryland law regulat-
ing funeral picketing.  See ante, at 11, n. 5.  And there is 
absolutely nothing to suggest that Congress and the state 
legislatures,  in  enacting  these  laws,  intended  them  to 
displace  the  protection  provided  by  the  well-established 
IIED tort. 

The real significance of these new laws is not that they 
obviate the need for IIED protection.  Rather, their enact-
ment  dramatically  illustrates  the  fundamental  point  that 
funerals  are  unique  events  at  which  special  protection 
against  emotional  assaults  is  in  order.    At  funerals,  the 
emotional  well-being  of  bereaved  relatives  is  particularly