Albert Snyder, father of fallen Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, sued the Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas after seven of its members picketed his son’s funeral. Seven members of the church lined Matthew Snyder’s funeral with signs that read “Thank God for dead soldiers,” among other things.

The church claims it protests soldier funerals because U.S. military deaths are God’s punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuals. It blames Americans’ acceptance of homosexuals for things such as Hurricane Katrina, AIDS and the war in Iraq. Matthew Snyder was not a homosexual in the military, he was just used as a vessel for the church to spew its rhetoric of hate and intolerance.

Albert Snyder sued the church for invasion of privacy and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Albert Snyder and his family won the multimillion dollar jury verdict of $11 million, which later was reduced to $5 million. The judge on the case reportedly said the church’s actions were outrageous and highly offensive.

In September 2009, a federal appeals court overturned a jury verdict that said the church went too far in the protests. On March 26, the court ruled that Snyder would have to pay all court costs to the church’s leader, the Rev. Fred Phelps.

All in the name of free speech.

As a journalist, free speech is something I thoroughly appreciate and enjoy. However, you ask yourself: What is the difference between free speech and hate speech? Where does the gray area between a liberty and an injustice begin? Didn’t the church impede on the Snyder family’s First Amendment rights? What about the right to religion (which includes religious ceremonies such as funerals) without being persecuted?

Where was the Snyder family’s justice? A jury ruled in favor of the Snyders. A jury of their peers who heard the case believed the Snyders’ rights had been violated. So why would a federal court find it constitutional to overturn the verdict solely based on freedom of speech? The answer escapes me.

Sure, some could argue the church members were well within their means of free speech. I suppose you could say it was the church members’ right to express their opinions and we should encourage people to do so. But there is a time and place for freedom of speech. Is that time while a family is standing at the end of a freshly dug grave? Not in my opinion.

I can’t even wrap my mind around the fact that someone would have the audacity to go to another person’s funeral to picket it. Matthew Snyder gave his life for this county, and he doesn’t deserve to be treated this way. His family has suffered an incredible loss — something that will take a substantial amount of time to heal — and now it’s faced with financing the people that metaphorically spit on their son’s funeral.

It’s disgusting.

And even if Matthew Snyder wasn’t a Marine, even if he wasn’t a member of any armed forces, it still would be wrong. A family should have the right to mourn without someone attacking it.

You don’t have to agree with the war. You don’t have to agree with homosexuality, other religions, feminism or anything else for that matter. But if that was your son, your daughter, your friend, your brother, your sister — how would you feel?

It is a slap in the face to anyone who has died for this country, any family that has had to watch its son or daughter go into the unknown of combat or for anyone who has lost someone they loved with all of their heart. It is offensive to me not only as the sister of a Marine, but as a person who has experienced the emptiness of losing someone you love.

The case is going to the U.S. Supreme Court in the fall. I hope the court takes the case and gives Matthew Snyder posthumous vindication. I hope the ruling lets his family rest easy knowing it fought for the honor of a son that fought for the honor of a county.

Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to disrespect a family the way that the Westboro Baptist Church did.
Semper fi.

Kate Jacobson is the State News cops and courts reporter. Reach her at jacob171@msu.edu.