Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

10 

SNYDER v. PHELPS 

Opinion of the Court 

because  Westboro  believes  that  God  is  killing  American 
soldiers as punishment for the Nation’s sinful policies. 

Westboro’s choice to convey its views in conjunction with
Matthew  Snyder’s  funeral  made  the  expression  of  those 
views  particularly  hurtful  to  many,  especially  to  Mat-
thew’s father.  The record makes clear that the applicable 
legal term—“emotional distress”—fails to capture fully the 
anguish  Westboro’s  choice  added  to  Mr.  Snyder’s  already 
incalculable  grief.  But  Westboro  conducted  its  picketing
peacefully  on  matters  of  public  concern  at  a  public  place 
adjacent to a public street.  Such space occupies a “special 
position in terms of First Amendment protection.”  United 
States  v.  Grace,  461  U. S.  171,  180  (1983).    “[W]e  have
repeatedly referred to public streets as the archetype of a
traditional public forum,” noting that “ ‘[t]ime out of mind’ 
public  streets  and  sidewalks  have  been  used  for  public 
assembly  and  debate.”    Frisby  v.  Schultz,  487  U. S.  474, 
480 (1988).4 

That  said,  “[e]ven  protected  speech  is  not  equally  per-
missible in all places and at all times.”  Id., at 479 (quot-
ing  Cornelius  v.  NAACP  Legal  Defense  &  Ed.  Fund,  Inc., 
473 U. S. 788, 799 (1985)).  Westboro’s choice of where and 
when  to  conduct  its  picketing  is  not  beyond  the  Govern-
ment’s regulatory reach—it is “subject to reasonable time, 
place, or manner restrictions” that are consistent with the
standards announced in this Court’s precedents.  Clark v. 
Community  for  Creative  Non-Violence,  468  U. S.  288,  293 
(1984).  Maryland now has a law imposing restrictions on
funeral  picketing,  Md.  Crim.  Law  Code  Ann.  §10–205 

—————— 

4 The  dissent  is  wrong  to  suggest  that  the  Court  considers  a  public
street “a free-fire zone in which otherwise actionable verbal attacks are 
shielded  from  liability.”    Post,  at  10–11.    The  fact  that  Westboro  con-
ducted  its  picketing  adjacent  to  a  public  street  does  not  insulate  the
speech  from  liability,  but  instead  heightens  concerns  that  what  is  at 
issue  is  an  effort  to  communicate  to  the  public  the  church’s  views  on
matters  of  public  concern.    That  is  why  our  precedents  so  clearly 
recognize the special significance of this traditional public forum.