The questions presented are attached below. The case is scheduled for oral arguments in October 2010. You'll be able to find the merits briefs here, when they are filed:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/home.html

Here is how one constitutional analyst framed the case:

"The funeral picketing case (Snyder v. Phelps, et al., 09-751) focuses on a significant question of First Amendment law: the degree of constitutional protection given to remarks that a private person made about another private person, occurring outside the site of a private event. The family of the dead soldier had won a verdict before a jury, but that was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court, finding that the signs displayed at the funeral in western Maryland and later comments on an anti-gay website were protected speech. The petition for review seeks the Court’s protection for families attending a funeral from “unwanted” remarks or displays by protesters.

In March four years ago, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder was killed while serving in Iraq. His family arranged for a private funeral, with Christian burial, at St. John’s Catholic Church in Westminster, Md. When word of the planned funeral appeared in the newspapers, the Rev. Fred W. Phelps, Sr., pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., who has gained notoriety in recent years by staging protests at military funerals, decided to stage a demonstration at the Maryland funeral. In response to such protests, some 40 states have passed laws to regulate funeral demonstrations.

The Rev. Phelps’ church preaches a strongly anti-gay message, contending that God hates America because it tolerates homosexuality, particularly in the military services. The church also spreads its views through an online site, www.godhatesfags.com. When the Snyder funeral occurred, the Rev. Phelps, two of his daughters and four grandchildren staged a protest nearby. They carried signs with such messages as “God Hates the USA,” “America is doomed,” “Pope in hell,” “Semper fi fags,” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.” The demonstration violated no local laws, and was kept at police orders a distance from the church. After the funeral, the Rev. Phelps continued his protest over the Snyder funeral on his church’s website, accusing the Snyder family of having taught their son irreligious beliefs.

The soldier’s father, Albert Snyder, sued the Rev. Phelps, his daughters and the Westboro Church under Maryland state law, and won a $5 million verdict based on three claims: intrusion into a secluded event, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. (The verdict included $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $2.1 million for punitive damages; the punitive award had been reduced from $8 million by the trial judge.) The Fourth Circuit Court overturned the verdict, concluding that the protesters’ speech was protected by the First Amendment because it was only a form of hyperbole, not an assertion of actual facts about the soldier or his family. While finding that the Phelps’ remarks were “utterly distasteful,” the Circuit Court said they involved matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuality in the military and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens.

In Albert Snyder’s appeal, his lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s protection of speech about public issues, especially the Justices’ 1988 decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, does not apply “to private individuals versus private individuals.” If it does apply, the petition said, “the victimized private individual is left without recourse.” The Circuit Court decision, it added, encourages private individuals to use hyperbolic language to gain constitutional protection “even if that language is targeted at another private individual at a private, religious funeral.”

Even if the Hustler decision does apply to the kind of remarks at issue, the petition asserted, the case also raises the issue of whether those who attend a funeral are like a “captive audience” and thus need protection against intruders who were not invited."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/co...neral-pickets/

Not sure if those are online.

There are a couple of links here to the state policies in regards to the Rights of the Mourning Families.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...neral_protests

and the act signed by President Bush which applies to the National Cemeteries.

Attached is the NC Statute for Disorderly conduct (para a 8).

It is Bill O'Reilly from Fox News that is paying the $16,500.

Disregard, missed where this had already been posted.

Todays Update
 

Not really anything we haven't already heard....

YORK, Pa. – Some nights Albert Snyder wakes up at 3 a.m. Other nights he doesn't sleep at all, tormented by thoughts of the hateful signs carried by a fundamentalist church outside his Marine son's funeral.
"Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
"You're Going to Hell."
"Semper Fi Fags."
Hundreds of grieving families have been targeted by the Westboro Baptist Church, which believes military deaths are the work of a wrathful God who punishes the United States for tolerating homosexuality.
Most mourners try to ignore the taunts. But Snyder couldn't let it go. He became the first to sue the church to halt the demonstrations, and he's pursued the group farther than anyone else.

Now, more than four years after his son died in a Humvee accident in Iraq, Snyder's legal battle is headed to the Supreme Court. And his tireless efforts have drawn support from across the country, including a wave of donations after he was ordered to pay the church's court costs — a $16,500 judgment that the congregation plans to use for more protests.
Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, 20, was not gay. But for the Westboro church, any dead soldier is fair game. Pastor Fred Phelps oversees a congregation of 70 to 80 members — mostly his children and grandchildren. They consider themselves prophets, and they insist the nation is doomed.
As Snyder sees it, Westboro isn't engaging in constitutionally protected speech when it pickets funerals. He argues that Phelps and his followers are disrupting private assemblies and harassing people at their most vulnerable — behavior that's an incitement to violence.
"This is more than free speech. This is like yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Somebody's going to get hurt," Snyder said, his voice rising and eyes welling with tears.
Snyder's lawsuit accuses the Topeka, Kan., church of invading his privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He has the backing of his ex-wife and his two daughters, but Snyder insisted on being the only plaintiff.
Except for the 40 hours per week he works selling industrial equipment, the case takes up nearly all his time. He says it's more stressful than a second full-time job.
Snyder, who lives in York, about 85 miles west of Philadelphia, is soft-spoken and polite. But anger and sadness flare up quickly, with little warning. The litigation has forced him to relive the anguish of his son's death, and his grief is still raw.
"It's still very emotional," Snyder said in an interview at his attorney's office. "It's like I constantly relive this every day, and I just wonder sometimes, when this is all over, what I'm going to do with that void. Will the grieving process begin?"
The fight has taken its toll on Snyder's health. The broad-chested 54-year-old has struggled with clinical depression and diabetes.
Snyder fought back against the church in part because he felt Westboro paid special attention to his son. Several weeks after the funeral, the pastor's daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, wrote in an online diatribe that Snyder and his ex-wife taught their son "to defy his creator."
Westboro also protests nonmilitary events, such as the 2007 funeral of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and the deaths of 29 miners last week in West Virginia. The group first grabbed widespread notice in 1998, when members appeared outside the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay University of Wyoming student whose murder drew national attention.
Lawyers Sean E. Summers and Craig T. Trebilcock, both military veterans, agreed to take Snyder's case pro bono. They warned him about the emotional toll of a long legal dispute.
Snyder won the first round decisively, when a jury in federal court in Baltimore awarded him $10.9 million in damages in October 2007. A judge later reduced the award to $5 million.
Last September, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the verdict, ruling Westboro's protest was constitutionally protected speech.
The Supreme Court agreed last month to consider whether the protesters' actions, no matter how provocative and upsetting, are protected by the First Amendment. The case will be argued in the fall.
Then something unexpected happened: The appeals court ordered Snyder to pay Westboro $16,510 in court costs. While it's not unusual for the losing party in a civil case to be required to pay some costs, it rarely happens when an individual sues a private entity, especially when the case is still active, experts say.
Margie Jean Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' daughters and an attorney, will argue the case before the Supreme Court. She has said the church plans to use the money from Snyder to stage more protests. That's what's so upsetting to Snyder, who says he would drop the matter if the church stopped picketing funerals.
Snyder has received plenty of publicity since filing the lawsuit, but interest intensified after the court-ordered payment.
Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly pledged to pay the entire $16,510, and the American Legion has raised more than $20,000. Every day, hundreds of envelopes arrive at Summers' office. Snyder plans to use the money for other court fees and to donate what's left over to veterans.
Not everyone is on Snyder's side, even if they find Westboro's protests loathsome.
They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land — 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md.
The protesters — Phelps and six family members — broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.
Jonathan M. Turley, a George Washington University law professor, asked his constitutional law class to grapple with the case. At first, the entire class was sympathetic to Snyder. But after they dug deeper, they concluded that Westboro's speech was protected by the First Amendment.
"Once you get down to trying to draw the line between privacy and free speech, it becomes clear that a ruling against Westboro could create the danger of a slippery slope for future courts," Turley said.
Turley, who studies the Supreme Court closely, said it's difficult to predict how the justices will rule.
Phelps-Roper has no doubt the court will favor Westboro. "If that case can prevail, there is no First Amendment left," she said.
Some military families see no reason why such protests cannot be restricted.
"I don't think these people should be allowed to come in and disrupt a family's grief," said Diane Salyers of Sims, Ark., whose son's funeral was picketed by Westboro in 2007. Snyder "speaks for all of us who've been affected by these people."

Something I wrote last year in a college class
 

Where do you draw the Line?
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees certain individual rights to include the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and the Freedom of Religion. It provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances(1.).” There are privileges given to organizations, but the amendment is rather vague in how it applies to multiple individuals expressing their rights at the same time in the same location. Does Mister Brown’s right to Free Speech outweigh the Wilson Family’s right to mourn the loss of their loved one?

At which point does a religious organization cease to be protected under the Freedom of Religion and prosecuted as a Hate Group? The Westboro Baptist Church (“WBC”) is currently being monitored by the Anti-Defamation League and has been classified as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Never heard of the WBC? If you have attended a military funeral since 2004, you may very well have been exposed to them. The church is led by Pastor Fred Phelps, a disbarred lawyer and his two daughters Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, who are also lawyers, with a congregation of 71 members, 60 of which are related by blood to Phelps. It appears that the church’s greatest income is through lawsuits based on infringement of their First Amendment Rights. The church runs several websites such as Godhatesfags.com, Godhatesamerica.com, and many others.

The WBC espouses a hateful message through verbal, physical, and written means in their sermons, internet web sites, and physical demonstrations, which is anti-homosexual and has led to multiple confrontations over the last ten years. Phelps and his followers frequently picket various events, especially military funerals, gay pride gatherings, and high-profile political gatherings, arguing it is their sacred duty to warn others of God’s anger. In 2004, they started protesting at military funerals carrying signs with “God hates Fags”, “Thank God for Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs)” and many other hateful slogans. Are they expressing their rights to Free Speech under the First Amendment? One could argue yes, in the same manner as the Neo Nazi groups and the Klu Klux Klan with their messages of hate and violence. When criticized, Phelps’ followers claim protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. For those unfamiliar with the United States Constitution, the first ten Amendments were written and signed in 1791, also known as the Bill of Rights, quantified that these rights could not be infringed on by the Federal Government. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, but it was not until the United States Supreme Court ruling on Gitlow vs New York in 1925 which held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state(2.).

When Marine Lance Corporal Mathew Snyder was killed in Iraq in 2006, the WBC protested at Mathew’s funeral service, and went so far as to publicly spread propaganda verbally and on the internet that Mathew’s parents has raised a child for the devil, and taught him to defy his Creator, to divorce and commit adultery. The Snyder Family sued the WBC for Defamation of Character, Invasion of Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. In Snyder vs. Phelps (2007), the judge’s instructions to the jury stated that the “First Amendment has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements and that the jury must decide whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection." The jury decided in favor of the Snyder family and awarded them over $10 million dollars. This was reduced to $5 million dollars in 2007 when the WBC appealed the previous verdict(3.).

As of yet, no member of the WBC has been charged with Inciting a Riot, though many have been charged with Disturbing the Peace. In November 2007, Shirley Phelps-Roper was charged with Desecration of a Flag, and Delinquency of a Minor for allowing her ten-year old son trample the US Flag in Nebraska. Desecration of the Flag is a subject which was still being discussed by Congress in the fall of 2008 and has not been passed into law. Several states have their own Desecration of Flag laws, several of which are currently undergoing constitutional review. At the very least this group should be punished for Defamation, and Endangerment of Minors.

The First Amendment has never given an absolute right to people to say whatever they want whenever they want. In Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942), the United States Supreme Court stated that “there are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” These include: the lewd and obscene; the profane; the libelous; and the insulting or “fighting words”—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace(4.).

In Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, certain personal slurs and obscene utterances by an individual were found unworthy of First Amendment protections due to the potential for violence resulting from their utterance. The speech at issue in Chaplinsky came to be known as “fighting words” and was defined by the United States Supreme Court as those words “which are likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace.” Subsequent cases limited Chaplinsky’s application to words that “have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark was addressed(5.).” This has been used in cases against the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood and I believe this line of reasoning would certainly apply to the WBC as well because they are actively provoking a confrontation with their actions.

part 2
 

continued.

Having seen this group in action at over twenty funerals in Colorado, Texas, and North Carolina, I feel nothing but contempt for them. How dare they intrude and spread their filth when all the grieving family wants to do is mourn for their loved one and say good-bye. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trampling on their First Amendment Rights. They can preach all the crap they want to on the other side of town, as long as they properly file the paperwork with the local authorities for their planned protest. This would permit WBC’s speech to be heard by passersby, but it would not incite a breach of the peace at the funeral where the family of a slain Soldier is burying their loved one. It is the same rational used in the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech, and that is what WBC preaches. However, in my opinion, when the WBC gets in the face of grieving relatives with hateful/inflammatory language, that’s when their speech loses the protections afforded by the First Amendment because it crosses from political to personal, from words of opposition to fighting words. It is times like this when the saying: “if you are unwilling to stand behind our Troops, feel free to stand in front of them on the front lines” bears special meaning to me.

The Respect for Fallen Heroes Act, signed into law on 29 May 2006 by Congress prohibits protests within 300 feet (100 meters) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration (a division of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs) from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment. This act was voted on by roll call in the House with a majority of 408 – 3, and unanimously by the Senate. In May 2006, President Bush signed the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act in response to Phelps’ protests at military funerals. In Dec 2006, an amendment was made to the federal criminal code making it unlawful for any person to engage in an activity within 60 minutes before and after, and within a specified distance of, a funeral of a member or former member of the Armed Forces at a cemetery other than a national cemetery that intentionally disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such funeral or impedes access to such funeral(6.). The Fallen Heroes Act does not provide protections for the grieving family at the church, funeral home, or the family’s private residence where the memorial service could be taking place. In April 2007, Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius signed into law a bill banning the protest of funerals. North Carolina rewrote their Disorderly Conduct Statute in 2006; the bill sponsored by Senator Jacumin went into effect 01 Dec 2006. In addition, several States have drafted laws which outlaw funeral protests and protect the rights of families mourning the loss of a loved one. These include but are not limited to felony charges to protest within 500 feet (approximately 150 meters) of a funeral, a prison term and/or a substantial fine. Currently there are funeral protest laws in 38 states. At least three states are currently pending court rulings on the constitutionality of their laws.

In United States vs. Grace (1983), the Supreme Court held that the government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in public forums (streets, parks, sidewalks, etc.) only if the restrictions are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. The government can prohibit a particular type of expression only if the prohibition is narrowly drawn to accomplish a compelling state interest(7.). I mention this because if the WBC is protesting on a public forum, then the Government can still regulate it if (1) the restrictions are content-neutral (meaning it doesn’t single out any one point of view on an issue); (2) are narrowly tailored to serve a government interest (the government interest here is to let mourners have time to grieve and prevent chaos/fighting); and (3) leave open ample alternative channels of communication (your “across town” approach and the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act provides in that the WBC can still say what they want but they must do so as not to interfere with a real religious service.

The First Amendment should not be re-written. It was written in such a manner as to provide the maximum protection with the least restrictions for unpopular speech.

It does not matter what your political views are, politics should never be involved in a funeral service for anyone. Let the family mourn their loved one in peace. A mourning family’s rights are every bit as important as an individual’s right to Freedom of Speech.


Additional Information:
(8.)
NC Statute § 14 288.4. Disorderly conduct. (a)
(8) Engages in conduct with the intent to impede, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with the orderly administration of any funeral, memorial service, or family processional to the funeral or memorial service, including a military funeral, service, or family processional, or with the normal activities and functions occurring in the facilities or buildings where a funeral or memorial service, including a military funeral or memorial service, is taking place. Any of the following conduct that occurs within one hour preceding, during, or within one hour after a funeral or memorial service shall constitute disorderly conduct under this subdivision:
a. Displaying, within 300 feet of the ceremonial site, location being used for the funeral or memorial, or the family's processional route to the funeral or memorial service, any visual image that conveys fighting words or actual or imminent threats of harm directed to any person or property associated with the funeral, memorial service, or processional route.
b. Uttering, within 300 feet of the ceremonial site, location being used for the funeral or memorial service, or the family's processional route to the funeral or memorial service, loud, threatening, or abusive language or singing, chanting, whistling, or yelling with or without noise amplification in a manner that would tend to impede, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with a funeral, memorial service, or processional route.
c. Attempting to block or blocking pedestrian or vehicular access to the ceremonial site or location being used for a funeral or memorial.
As used in this section the term "building or facility" includes the surrounding grounds and premises of any building or facility used in connection with the operation or functioning of such building or facility.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, any person who willfully engages in disorderly conduct is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(c) A person who commits a violation of subdivision (8) of subsection (a) of this section is guilty of:
(1) A Class 2 misdemeanor for a first offense.
(2) A Class 1 misdemeanor for a second offense.
(3) A Class I felony for a third or subsequent offense. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1971, c. 668, s. 1; 1973, c. 1347; 1975, c. 19, s. 4; 1983, c. 39, s. 5; 1987, c. 671, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 189; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001 26, s. 2; 2006 169, s. 1.)


References:
(1.) The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone… [et al.]. – 2nd ed. page xlvii
(2.) The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone… [et al.]. – 2nd ed. page 36
(3.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westbor...egal_responses
(4.) The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone… [et al.]. – 2nd ed. page 83
(5.) The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone… [et al.]. – 2nd ed. page 83
(6.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Heroes_Act
(7.) The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone… [et al.]. – 2nd ed. page 298
(8.) http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions.../SIN1833v2.pdf

WBC on post
 

Well, we'll see if they show up today. They said that they are coming to the mission on post today.

I don't think that they will be well received by "joe" if they stand around with their "Thank God for IEDs" sign.

If it were up to me, the following would be SOP every time they protested a soldiers funeral
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGKx2pTBQc

But I’m not in charge….:D

Anyone that takes pleasure in the death of fallen heroes with an in your face assitude towards the families and loved ones of those fallen patriots deserves what’s coming……my .02... :mad:

This "church" consists mostly of Phelps family members. They welcome lawsuits and publicity.

The Phelps clan.

http://www.break.com/index/crazy_phe...y_on_tyra.html

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/508400...g_hate_part_1/