Question

In Snyder v. Phelps, the trial court said the Phelpses could be held liable for IIED based on the outrageousness of their speech. The Supreme Court said outrageousness:

a) Is not protected under the First Amendment
b) Must be determined objectively
c) Should be evaluated based on local standards
d) Is not relevant in this case

Answer 1

The outrageousness of speech was deemed not relevant by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Snyder v. Phelps case, affirming that such speech is protected under the First Amendment even if it causes emotional distress.

Step-by-step explanation:

Snyder v. Phelps and First Amendment Rights

In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the outrageousness of speech is not relevant when determining if speech is protected by the First Amendment. The case clarified that even the distasteful protest by the Westboro Baptist Church at a military funeral, deemed to cause emotional distress, could not be the basis for liability because the speech was on a public matter and protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision reflects a consistent approach that prioritizes free speech even in instances where the content of that speech is offensive to many.

Throughout history, limitations on First Amendment protections have been considered in cases such as Schenck v. United States under the "clear and present danger" test. However, this test is no longer the sole determinant of constitutional limits on speech. Rather, the Court has recognized that different types of speech, such as obscenity or calls to immediate violence, can be treated differently under the law. Yet, offensive speech about public matters, conveyed in a public way, remains protected.