COMM 317: Due process in First Amendment case

Here's a story on today's Baltimore Sun website that raises definite First Amendment issues --

It's also about due process, the way I read it.

A U.S. district judge in Baltimore has cut in half the damages awarded to the family of a marine whose funeral was disrupted by anti-gay protestors. But he allowed the original jury verdict against the protestors to stand.

"There was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that [the protestors'] conduct before, during and after the funeral of Matthew Snyder was outrageous ... [and] highly offensive to a reasonable person," U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett wrote in a 52-page opinion.

So Bennett upheld the jury's decision. But he cut the damages award from $10.9 million to $5 million. According to The Sun, he "cited Supreme Court precedent requiring the judge to weigh the nature of the harm suffered by Snyder against the financial resources of Westboro and its members to finance a large damage award."

What are the First Amendment issues here?

(When we speak of an "issue" here, we're using the specialized sense of a question to be resolved. Dictionary.com has these definitions in sections 5 through 8:

5. a point in question or a matter that is in dispute, as between contending parties in an action at law.
6. a point, matter, or dispute, the decision of which is of special or public importance: the political issues.
7. a point the decision of which determines a matter: The real issue in the strike was the right to bargain collectively.
8. a point at which a matter is ready for decision: to bring a case to an issue.

They all mean more or less the same thing. So when we speak of the "issue of law," we're speaking of a question that has to be decided in a case.

Here are some issues in this case: How far can you go in exercising your right to free speech? How far is too far? Can you injure another person? When do you invade another person's privacy? What is a reasonable amount for a defendant to pay for inflicting emotional distress and invasion of privacy? How do you make a fair decision on what's a reasonable amount. (Hint: You go back to court, you have a hearing. That's what "due process" is about.) How would you decide these issues? Why did the judge decide them the way he did? What was his reasoning? Ask yourself these questions, and you'll be thinking like a lawyer.