Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

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

1 

BREYER, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 09–751 
_________________ 

ALBERT SNYDER, PETITIONER v. FRED W. 

PHELPS, SR., ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[March 2, 2011] 

JUSTICE BREYER, concurring. 
I agree with the Court and join its opinion.  That opin-
ion  restricts  its  analysis  here  to  the  matter  raised  in  the
petition for certiorari, namely, Westboro’s picketing activ-
ity.  The  opinion  does  not  examine  in  depth  the  effect  of 
television  broadcasting.    Nor  does  it  say  anything  about 
Internet  postings. 
The  Court  holds  that  the  First 
Amendment  protects  the  picketing  that  occurred  here, 
primarily  because  the  picketing  addressed  matters  of 
“public concern.”

While I agree with the Court’s conclusion that the pick-
eting addressed matters of public concern, I do not believe 
that our First Amendment analysis can stop at that point. 
A  State  can  sometimes  regulate  picketing,  even  picketing
on  matters  of  public  concern.    See  Frisby  v.  Schultz,  487 
U. S.  474  (1988).  Moreover,  suppose  that  A  were  physi-
cally  to  assault  B,  knowing  that  the  assault  (being  news-
worthy)  would  provide  A  with  an  opportunity  to  transmit
to the public his views on a matter of public concern.  The 
constitutionally  protected  nature  of  the  end  would  not 
shield  A’s  use  of  unlawful,  unprotected  means.    And  in 
some  circumstances  the  use  of  certain  words  as  means 
would  be  similarly  unprotected.  See  Chaplinsky  v.  New 
Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942) (“fighting words”). 

The dissent recognizes that the means used here consist