Home»News Home»California Headlines»Nevada News»US Supreme Court to consider issue with ties to Sparks, Nev.

US Supreme Court to consider issue with ties to Sparks, Nev.

Page Last Updated: Wednesday March 10, 2010 8:36am PST

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church shown here during one their protests.

Victoria Campbell, News 4

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a controversial case later this year, and one Sparks family will be watching closely to see what justices decide.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by the surviving family of Matthew Snyder, who was serving in the US military when he was killed in Iraq in March, 2006. At his funeral, members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas protested outside the ceremony. The group believes God is killing American soldiers because of the country's tolerance of homosexuality. Typically, they carry brightly-colored signs reading "God Hates Your Tears", "God Hates You" and derogatory, demeaning language aimed at gay people.

When Christine Minear's son, Sean Gaul, was killed in Iraq in January, 2008, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested outside her son's funeral in Reno.

"I knew they were going to come," Minear said. "I was very much afraid of seeing them."

Minear said she rode in the car with her family, but kept her head down on the way to the funeral. But when she finally looked out the window, she was surprised.

"All I saw was these huge American flags, lining the whole street," she said. "And I was so thankful."

Members of the Patriot Guard, a motorcycle riding self-appointed group of advocates for military families who have lost loved ones in the war, had also attended the funeral and carried flags along the route to the church and the cemetery. Local law enforcement also watched over the funeral to make sure there were no problems.

But when the Supreme Court tackles the issue this fall, justices will not care about the emotional toll the protests are taking. Instead, they will consider the protesters' right to free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the First Amendment cannot be applied sporadically, no matter how distasteful or despicable someone's speech is.

"The key is to focus not on pure speech, but on whether they interfered," said Lee Rowland, an attorney for the ACLU in Reno. "Did they obstruct someone else's parade? Did they make so much sound, someone couldn't hold their own event?

"You don't just ban speech."

Christina Minear acknowledged the protesters' right to say whatever they want to. But she said the matter is less of a legal issue to her, and more of a matter of common decency to a family in mourning.

"My son died for that freedom, and the other freedoms we enjoy," she said. "They can say what they want.

"But I don't think every single place on the planet is appropriate for every single message."

View News Archive »