STEVE INSKEEP, Host:
It's MORNING EDITION, from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep.
RENEE MONTAGNE, Host:
Good morning.
NINA TOTENBERG: Good morning, Renee.
MONTAGNE: Why don't we begin with the facts of the case?
TOTENBERG: Matthew Snyder's father sued the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a jury awarded him several million dollars. Today, the Supreme Court set aside that verdict by an eight-to-one vote, and the court ruled that the jury award, in essence, unconstitutionally punished the church for its speech - admittedly hurtful and unorthodox speech, but speech nonetheless on the public issues that's protected by the First Amendment guarantee of free expression.
MONTAGNE: Why exactly did the court say that the protestors are protected from being sued?
TOTENBERG: Well, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the court majority, said - and I'm quoting, here, from the end of this opinion: "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and as it did here, inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation, we have chosen a different course, to protect even hurtful speech on public issues, to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from liability for its picketing in this case."
MONTAGNE: The margin on the court was eight-to-one. Who was that lone dissenter?
TOTENBERG: The lone dissenter was Justice Sam Alito, appointed by President Bush, the most recent President Bush. And he said that this was, in essence, private speech. And he said the church's outrageous conduct caused Mr. Snyder great injury, and the court now compounds that injury by depriving Snyder of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered. In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like Mr. Snyder. Therefore, he said, I respectfully dissent.
MONTAGNE: This has been a case that's gotten a lot of publicity because of the sort of implications for the sadness of the family, as you've said, and whatnot. Was this decision unexpected?
TOTENBERG: I would have to say no. You could tell at the oral argument that the court was very uncomfortable about having to deal with these - this very unpleasant set of facts, but that it couldn't figure out a way to say that these people were not protected by the First Amendment, but other people are protected by the First Amendment with more traditional views, and that just because the views are unpleasant to most people, they couldn't figure a way to say, well, under the First Amendment, we're going to punish people for espousing those views. So I'd have to say it was pretty expected.
MONTAGNE: NPR's Nina Totenberg.
TOTENBERG: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.