Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

4 

SNYDER v. PHELPS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value 
as  a  step  to  truth  that  any  benefit  that  may  be  derived 
from  them  is  clearly  outweighed  by  the  social  interest  in 
order  and  morality.”  Chaplinsky  v.  New  Hampshire,  315 
U. S. 568, 572 (1942); see also Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 
U. S.  296,  310  (1940)  (“[P]ersonal  abuse  is  not  in  any 
proper  sense  communication  of  information  or  opinion 
safeguarded  by  the  Constitution”).  When  grave  injury  is
intentionally  inflicted  by  means  of  an  attack  like  the  one 
at  issue  here,  the  First  Amendment  should  not  interfere 
with recovery. 

III 
In  this  case,  respondents  brutally  attacked  Matthew
Snyder,  and  this  attack,  which  was  almost  certain  to
inflict  injury,  was  central  to  respondents’  well-practiced 
strategy for attracting public attention. 

On  the  morning  of  Matthew  Snyder’s  funeral,  respon-
dents could have chosen to stage their protest at countless
locations.  They  could  have  picketed  the  United  States
Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Penta-
gon,  or  any  of  the  more  than  5,600  military  recruiting 
stations in this country.  They could have returned to the 
Maryland  State  House  or  the  United  States  Naval  Acad-
emy,  where  they  had  been  the  day  before.    They  could 
have  selected  any  public  road  where  pedestrians  are  al-
lowed. 
(There  are  more  than  4,000,000  miles  of  public 
roads in the United States.2)  They could have staged their 
(There  are  more  than  20,000 
protest  in  a  public  park. 
public parks in this country.3)  They could have chosen any 

—————— 

2 See  Dept.  of  Transp.,  Federal  Highway  Administration, Highway  Sta-
tistics  2008,  Table  HM–12M,  http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/ 
statistics/2008/hm12m.cfm (all Internet materials as visited Feb. 25, 2011, 
and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). 

3 See  Trust 

for  Public  Land,  2010  City  Park  Facts,  http:// 

www.tpl.org/content_documents/CityParkFacts_2010.pdf.