Protest at military funeral ignites a test of free speech

YORK, Pa. — Albert Snyder tears up, then turns angry as he recalls burying his Marine son while members of the anti-gay fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church picketed nearby.
"I can remember being presented the flag at the graveyard. I can remember saluting the coffin," Snyder says of the unusually balmy day in March 2006 when the family memorialized Matthew, a lance corporal killed in Iraq.

Yet, Snyder says, he can't separate such moments from the memory that his only son's funeral was picketed by fundamentalist pastor Fred Phelps and his followers with an inflammatory message that had nothing to do with Matthew.

Disconnecting the death of his 20-year-old son from his reaction to the protests "became very difficult."

Snyder, who sued Phelps for his distress, says he feels like he has been stabbed, and the wound will not heal.

The case has grown beyond a single clash between a devastated father and an attention-seeking, fire-and-brimstone group into a major test of speech rights and of safeguards for the sanctity of military funerals. The Supreme Court will hear the case Oct. 6, a crucial First Amendment challenge against the poignant backdrop of war deaths, family suffering and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve — as long as their sexual orientation remains secret.

Fourteen sets of outside organizations have entered the case. Those siding with Snyder include a majority of the states and a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, led by Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Free speech groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, say they find Phelps' message horrific but that such speech is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to protect.

Supporters of Snyder, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the states, emphasize the importance of protecting the privacy of grieving families and minimize the value of the Phelps' speech.

Phelps, who preaches that God hates gay people and protests what he views as the nation's tolerance of homosexuality — particularly the "don't ask, don't tell" policy — brushes off Snyder's anguish. In a telephone interview from his Topeka home, Phelps says the father's claim of emotional injuries is exaggerated.

"He ought to be very thankful to us that we ... warn people about the perils of sinful conduct that will destroy a nation," Phelps says.

Phelps knew nothing about Matthew Snyder, who was not gay, beyond that his funeral in Westminster, Md., offered the chance to draw attention to Phelps' message. Among the signs he brought were some that said, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

Snyder sued Phelps and family members who were the primary demonstrators for the distress he suffered from their picketing and a Web video the Phelpses created about their protest. Snyder won a $5 million verdict in 2007. A federal appeals court overturned the judgment last year, saying the Phelps protest was protected by the First Amendment.

The dispute before the Supreme Court involves Maryland law, yet cases related to the Phelpses and other local laws are simmering across the country. The issue for the justices in Snyder v. Phelps is an individual's claim for damages from offensive messages, not the validity of government limits on protests near funerals.

"Free speech ideals usually are pretty abstract," observes University of Missouri law professor Christina Wells, who has written extensively on protesters' rights. "People say we agree with the First Amendment but when we get into areas that are offensive, like flag burning, people are much less tolerant."

Wells is among several scholars of First Amendment law, civil libertarians and news media representatives who have joined briefs stressing the need to protect odious speech.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars, among the groups on Snyder's side, counters in its brief, "If Albert Snyder, a grieving father of an American hero, cannot seek remedy from (Phelps and his relatives) for the emotional torment (they) viciously imposed upon him, what purpose do our laws serve?"

"You only get one chance to do a burial," adds Harrisburg, Pa., lawyer Timothy Nieman, who wrote the VFW's filing. He says the Westboro protest created "a circus atmosphere at a private, sanctified time."

'I still have so much anger'

Snyder, who has become a public face of families' grief for the thousands of troops killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has received e-mails from across the nation, letters from troops in the field, stuffed toys, a quilt and other tokens of sympathy.

"A man who dies for his country, for peace, should not have a father who has to fight to bury him in peace," Snyder, an industrial equipment salesman, says during an interview in his lawyer's office. "I still have so much anger that I have to cope with."

Snyder, 55 years old with a salt-and-pepper beard, clasps his hands tightly in front of him and speaks slowly, trying to keep emotions in check, as he explains why he decided to sue the Phelpses: "Every time I thought of Matt or passed his picture on the wall, I would think about what these people did to him."

It was more than the hateful signs near the funeral at the Catholic Church service in the family's hometown, he says. The video on the Westboro website that Snyder found days later also caused him pain. Entitled The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, it asserted Snyder and his ex-wife had "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil."

Snyder said Phelps and other Westboro church members caused him depression and worsened his diabetes. Snyder prevailed in federal court in 2007 based on three Maryland state grounds: intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion on privacy and civil conspiracy.

The jury said Snyder was owed $2.9 million in damages to compensate him for the harm and $8 million in punitive damages, designed to punish Phelps. The judge reduced the punitive damages to $2.1 million, for a total of $5 million against the Phelpses.

In their appeal, the Phelpses said the case should have never gone to a jury because of the First Amendment principles at stake.

Part of anti-gay campaign

For Fred Phelps, who founded the Westboro church in 1955 and has been its only pastor, military funerals have become a prime site for drawing news media attention to his opposition to homosexuals, the government and sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church.

The U.S. appeals court that heard the Snyder case noted that the Westboro Church focuses on "the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens." Among the signs Phelps and his congregants display, according to lower court records, are "Pope in Hell," "Priests Rape Boys," "Don't Pray for the USA," and "America is Doomed."

He and his grown children check local newspapers for obituaries and, Phelps says, try to send congregants to protest almost every day of the year. "When homosexuality rears its ugly head, and you don't preach and stop it, your nation is doomed," says Phelps, 80.

Phelps has made headlines for decades, including for protesting at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student slain in 1998.

Westboro church has about 60 members, most of whom are Phelps' relatives. Two grown daughters and four of Phelps' grandchildren joined him at the Snyder funeral.

Phelps' lawyer is one of his 13 children, Margie Phelps, who says the congregation was "engaging in public speech on a public right-of-way, about issues of vital public interest." She says church members "act out of a love for God, the Bible, and their fellow citizens."

Margie Phelps argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that the First Amendment protects their protests, as long as they follow local laws about how close they can get to a church.

The appeals court agreed, saying the case should never have gone to the jury.

The trial judge had declared that Snyder was not a "public figure," undercutting the First Amendment protection the Phelpses asserted. The appeals court, however, said the question was not the private or public status of Snyder, but rather the "type" of speech at issue.

"As utterly distasteful as these signs are," the 4th Circuit said, "they involve matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens."

Quoting from an earlier ruling, the court added, "the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."

Speech advocates urging the high court to uphold the 4th Circuit ruling say natural public sympathy for military families and the Phelpses' shocking statements should not cloud the First Amendment stakes.

Joshua Wheeler, representing the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Freedom of Expression in Charlottesville, Va., says, "We do not challenge the suffering that Mr. Snyder has had to endure. We strongly disagree with the Phelpses' message and the manner in which they expressed it. But if the court sides with Mr. Snyder, the consequences for freedom of expression would be significantly chilling."

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by 21 news media groups, adds, "This case tests the mettle of even the most ardent free speech advocates because the underlying speech is so repugnant."

For Snyder, the case is not about speech rights, but personal harassment. Many federal and state officials agree.

Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, representing Senate leaders, tells the high court that free speech on public issues "does not encompass insults and verbal abuse intended to invade a private memorial ceremony and injure its participants."

He says protesters can take a stand in virtually any public place, but they cannot "hijack (a family's) private funeral as a vehicle for expression of their own hate."

Joining Snyder are 48 states — all except Maine and Virginia, which did not weigh in on the case — and the District of Columbia. In his appeal on behalf of Snyder, lawyer Sean Summers urges the court to focus on the targeted nature of the Phelpses' conduct against private people who Summers says were not public figures in a public debate.

Summers says because Matthew Snyder was not gay and not engaged in public debate, it was likely the Phelpses' signs and Web video were intended to hurt a particular servicemember and interfere with the family's grief.

Snyder recalls that Matthew decided to enlist in the Marines shortly after the U.S. had invaded Iraq in 2003. He had just finished high school and was only 17, but Snyder says he did not want to stand in his son's way. He had known that military service was a goal of Matthew, the middle of his three children.

"People say, 'If you had to do it all over again, would you do it all over again?' " Snyder says. "Yeah, I probably would because that's what his dream was."

Reposted from USAToday

Troops: Skipping Christian concert got us punished

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The Army said Friday it was investigating a claim that dozens of soldiers who refused to attend a Christian band's concert at a Virginia military base were banished to their barracks and told to clean them up.
Fort Eustis spokesman Rick Haverinen told The Associated Press he couldn't comment on the specifics of the investigation. At the Pentagon, Army spokesman Col. Thomas Collins said the military shouldn't impose religious views on soldiers.

"If something like that were to have happened, it would be contrary to Army policy," Collins said.

Pvt. Anthony Smith said he and other soldiers felt pressured to attend the May concert while stationed at the Newport News base, home of the Army's Transportation Corps.

"My whole issue was I don't need to be preached at," Smith said in a phone interview from Phoenix, where he is stationed with the National Guard. "That's not what I signed up for."

Smith, 21, was stationed in Virginia for nearly seven months for helicopter electrician training when the Christian rock group BarlowGirl played as part of the "Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts."

Smith said a staff sergeant told 200 men in their barracks they could either attend or remain in their barracks. Eighty to 100 decided not to attend, he said.

"Instead of being released to our personal time, we were locked down," Smith said. "It seemed very much like a punishment."

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation first reported on the Christian concert. The foundation said it was approached by soldiers who were punished for not attending or offended by the religious theme of the event.

The group's president, Mikey Weinstein, claims Christian-themed events are "ubiquitous" throughout the military, and he credited the soldiers for stepping forward.

"Whenever we see this egregious, unconstitutional religious tyranny our job is to fight it," he said.

Smith said he and the other soldiers were told not to use their cellphones or personal computers and ordered to clean up the barracks.

About 20 of the men, including several Muslims, refused to attend the concert based on their religious beliefs, he said.

Smith said he went up the chain of command and traced the concert edict to a captain, who said he simply wanted to "show support for those kind of events that bring soldiers together."

While not accepting blame, the officer apologized to the soldiers who refused to attend the concert and said it was not his intent to proselytize, he said.

"But once you get in there, you realize it's evangelization," Smith said.

From USAToday

Military sees it's time for a change in camouflage

Soon, when soldiers stalk the enemy in Afghanistan, they may be harder to see.
The Army this month began issuing new uniforms printed with a camouflage pattern called MultiCam, which is designed to blend in better with the varied landscapes of the country's mountainous terrain.

"MultiCam was selected as being the best pattern suited to Afghanistan," says Lt. Col. Mike Sloane, product manager for soldier clothing and individual equipment for Army's Program Executive Office Soldier.

The first to get the clothing is the 2nd Brigade 34th Infantry division, an Iowa National Guard unit preparing to deploy overseas from Camp Shelby, Miss. Brigades will get the uniforms as they deploy. Those that have already deployed will begin turning in their uniforms for new ones in December.

The current camouflage has been in use for six years and consists of hundreds of tiny squares bearing shades of tan, green and gray.

The MultiCam uniforms (as well as backpacks and other gear) are a patchwork of seven shades, including greens, tan and brown interspersed with dark brown splotches.

One significant difference between the two patterns is that MultiCam is designed not only to blend with the environment but also to reflect some surrounding colors, taking on an overall green appearance under a forest canopy and a tan look in the open desert, according to Crye Precision, the Brooklyn company that created the pattern.

The pattern also benefits U.S. troops who fight mostly under the cover of darkness. It is less reflective of infrared and near-infrared colors, "so at night you'll blend into the background a little bit" when seen through night-vision goggles, Sloane says.

In designing the pattern, makers took hundreds of photographs of the Afghan terrain and studied how animals use camouflage in nature, company founder Caleb Crye says.

The change is costing between $200 million and $270 million, Sloane says. He said the switch to MultiCam was ramped up after soldiers complained that their camouflage uniforms were ineffective in Afghanistan.

Capt. Joe Corsentino, an aviator, told the Army Times that the current combat uniform "stands out like a sore thumb" in Afghanistan.

"It doesn't blend into anything," 2nd Lt. Chris Cahak said.

The switch is at least the third Army battle uniform change in the past 20 years, says security analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org.

Previous patterns included the six-color "chocolate chip" desert pattern that had patches of dark brown, gray and black flecks and was worn in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, followed by a three-color desert uniform of light tan, dark tan and brown swaths. The current camouflage uniform was adopted in 2004.

Soldiers who tested MultiCam in military exercises at Fort Benning in Georgia said comrades were much harder to see among trees, or from a distance when on patrol and in mock battle situations, according to a 2007 report from the Army Research Laboratory.

The new uniforms will also have features such as buttons on pockets instead of Velcro, which can clog with sand. They also are made with a built-in bug repellent, called permethrin, to counter sand fleas and mosquitoes, Sloane says.

The quest to better cloak our fighters will continue, though. The Pentagon says it is soliciting ideas for camouflage that works well in other areas of the world.

"Somebody might come in with chameleon pattern," Sloane says. "We're hoping they will, but we don't know if the technology is there yet."

Reposted from USAToday.com