"If the Westboro Baptist Church had simply picketed LCPL Snyder's funeral, this would perhaps be a 1st Amendment issue", explained Craig Trebilcock, Esq., one of the two attorneys representing plaintiff Albert Snyder. "Instead, they subjected the Snyder family to a reign of harassment prior their son's funeral to two weeks afterwards, which changed the case from a federal freedom of speech issue to one of harassment and conspiracy, which is instead a civil issue."

Snyder vs. Phelps (09-751) will be heard 6 October by the U.S. Supreme Court. Sean Summer, Esq, will be speaking for Albert Snyder, father of Lcpl. Matthew Snyder, while Ms. Margie Phelps Esq, daughter of defendant  Frederick Phelps, will represent Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.

Military.com spoke at length with Trebilcock on this contentious and increasingly emotion-driven case. The basic facts are that Snyder, 20, died in March 2006 in a non-combat incident in Iraq's Anbar Province. During his funeral, held on private ground in Westminster, Maryland, members of Topeka, Kansas's Westboro Baptist Church picketed Snyder's funeral with signs, banners, and invective calling him a homosexual and claiming his death was God's way of punishing America for condoning homosexuality.

In 2007 Snyder sued Westboro Baptist Church and its leaders contending they invaded his privacy and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. A jury awarded him $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages in October 2007, forcing the Westboro church into filing for bankruptcy.

However in September 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., overturned the lower court's verdict, with existing law allowing $16,510.80 in court costs to Phelps as the successful litigant.Two of the three judges found in favor of Westboro on the grounds that Westboro's message was "sheer hyperbole" and therefore entitled to extra 1st Amendment protection due to the outrageousness of Westboro's message. Ironically for ultra-conservative Westboro Baptist Church, the judges cited Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) in which the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous 8-0 decision held the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them. Hustler's parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody as factual, thus reversing a prior jury award to Falwell of $ 200,000.

While various legal experts say the case is a test of the limits of free speech, an equal amount disagree. Similar demonstrations by Westboro Baptist Church members have prompted several states to establish limits on funeral protests and the attorney generals of 48 states filed signed an amicus brief in support of Snyder. "People want to make this out as free speech," Trebilcock said Monday, "but actually it's about harassment and who is or is not a public figure." He continued "Lance Corporal Snyder was a 20 year-old Marine from Maryland who died in Iraq; how does a church group from Kansas declare him a ‘public figure? Because they're claiming that since the Snyder family ran an obituary in the local newspaper that makes him fair game. They lost that argument in the first trial, however." What separates this case from that of Falwell v. Hustler, however, is that Rev Jerry Falwell was an internationally recognized figure, and not an anonymous Marine up-gunner.

Where Trebilcock believes Phelps crossed the line from a 1st Amendment case to one of civil harassment and slander, was Westboro's continuous targeting of the Snyder family. "After picking Lance Corporal Snyder's obituary off the internet, Phelps's church issued a press release prior to the funeral," Trebilcock said, "designed to generate maximum press interest in their impending demonstration. Then they demonstrated, with as much venom and ugliness as possible. But they still weren't done; some two weeks later they posted "The Burden of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder' on their website, asserting that Snyder taught his son to be an adulterer, and that Matthew is in hell.

Such concerted and repeated attacks on the Snyder family, Trebilcock explained, changes the case from a 1st Amendment issue to one of a conspiracy to terrorize and harassment. By legal standards, a conspiracy is a group of people banding together to commit an unlawful or illegal act; while the actions of the Westboro Church are not illegal, per se, they are unlawful. "Lance Corporal Snyder was not a homosexual," said Trebilcock, "and there is no 1st Amendment protection in deliberately slandering someone." Those actions: intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion on privacy, and civil conspiracy, are why Snyder won his case, and why Trebilcock believes Snyder will be victorious at the Supreme Court.

Additionally, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision is an imperfect decision. It deals exclusively with the 1st Amendment rights of the Westboro Baptist Church while ignoring those of the Snyder family. A Catholic Church ceremony with a military color guard clearly makes a statement, yet the 4th Circuit completely ignored Albert Snyder's right to make one. The 1st Amendment equally shields Snyder's right to make a statement, yet his rights were not addressed. That will be addressed at the Supreme Court hearing.

Although the case has grown publicity beyond a clash between a devastated father and an attention-seeking extremist preacher, the basic facts remain unaltered: 1st Amendment rights are not absolute, but are subject to the limits set by emotional distress, the right to privacy, and civil conspiracy.