Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

SNYDER v. PHELPS 

Syllabus 

ments  were  entitled  to  First  Amendment  protection  because  those
statements  were  on  matters  of  public  concern,  were  not  provably
false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric. 

Held: The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its

picketing in this case.  Pp. 5–15.

(a) The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as a 
defense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction of 
emotional  distress.  Hustler  Magazine,  Inc.  v.  Falwell,  485  U. S.  46, 
50-51.  Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro li-
able for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is 
of  public  or  private  concern,  as  determined  by  all  the  circumstances
of the case.  “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of 
the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special 
protection.”  Connick  v.  Myers,  461  U. S.  138,  145.    Although  the
boundaries  of  what  constitutes  speech  on  matters  of  public  concern 
are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public con-
cern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of po-
litical, social, or other concern to the community,” id., at 146, or when 
it  “is  a  subject  of  general  interest  and  of  value  and  concern  to  the
public,” San Diego v. Roe, 543 U. S. 77, 83–84.  A statement’s argua-
bly  “inappropriate  or  controversial  character  . . .  is  irrelevant  to  the 
question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.”  Rankin v. 
McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 387.  Pp. 5–7.

To  determine  whether  speech  is  of  public  or  private  concern,  this 
Court  must  independently  examine  the  “ ‘content,  form,  and  con-
text,’ ”  of  the  speech  “ ‘as  revealed  by  the  whole  record.’ ”    Dun  & 
Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 761.   In 
considering content, form, and context, no factor is dispositive, and it
is necessary to evaluate all aspects of the speech.  Pp. 7–8.

The  “content”  of  Westboro’s  signs  plainly  relates  to  public,  rather 
than private, matters.  The placards highlighted issues of public im-
port—the  political  and  moral  conduct  of  the  United  States  and  its
citizens,  the  fate  of  the  Nation,  homosexuality  in  the  military,  and 
scandals  involving  the  Catholic  clergy—and  Westboro  conveyed  its 
views on those issues in a manner designed to reach as broad a public
audience as possible.  Even if a few of the signs were viewed as con-
taining  messages  related  to  a  particular  individual,  that  would  not
change  the  fact  that  the  dominant  theme  of  Westboro’s  demonstra-
tion spoke to broader public issues.  P. 8. 

The “context” of the speech—its connection with Matthew Snyder’s
funeral—cannot by itself transform the nature of Westboro’s speech. 
The signs reflected Westboro’s condemnation of much in modern soci-
ety, and it cannot be argued that Westboro’s use of speech on public
issues  was  in  any  way  contrived  to  insulate  a  personal  attack  on