Phelps Roper v. City of Manchester

Question of the Extent of Protection for Freedom of Speech

In the case of Phelps-Roper v. the City of Manchester, the Court finds that the City of Manchester did abide by the Constitution by instituting an ordinance that regulated protest near funerals. The Phelps-Roper family belong to the Westboro Baptist Church which protest the United States government for approving of homosexuality. In the City of Manchester, Missouri, the Westboro Baptist Church were protesting funerals to spread their message of anti-homosexuality to the community. In response, Manchester placed the ordinance which “prohibited picketing or other protest activities within three hundred feet of any residence, cemetery, funeral home, church, synagogue, or other establishment during or within one hour before or after the conducting of an actual funeral or burial service at that place”, § 210.264. The Phelps-Roper Family brought the case to the court claiming their First Amendment right of free speech had been compromised due to the ordinance’s regulation. Under the ordinance, the Westboro Baptist Church is not restricted in their ability to exercise their freedom of speech but only contained to allow the right to privacy during a funeral. From an objective perspective, it at first seems that the ordinance is targeting the specific view of Phelps-Roper family but on its face, the regulation is clearly a content-based neutral.
With Ward as the leading precedent, we find that if the regulation is content-based, with no significant interest, no narrowly tailored means, or no alternatives, it fails to provide a fair and equal protection of the 1st Amendment's right to free speech. The point of contention in this case concerns whether or not Manchester’s ordinance ...

... middle of paper ...

...n Phelps-Roper v. Strickland, the Court made mention of “unwanted public intrusion on the survivors' mourning of the deceased” and its affect on the family. The ordinance does provide restrictions to the ability of the family to protest but it ultimately does not prevent it from happening. It leaves room for many other avenues for protesting acceptance of homosexuality in the United States. Even to the extent, the family could protest at the very church the funeral was at just either an hour before or after. Upholding this ordinance to a certain extent does provide some controversy within the United States. It seems as though to some degree, the court is approving of homosexuality as well. This is just not the case, it is not the court’s position to decide between societal disagreements or controversy but to uphold the inherent language found in the Constitution.