Both cases deal with defamation, but in different ways. In Hustler v.

Falwell, it is determined that a public figure can not be awarded damages unless they can prove that the defamation was an act of intentional malice, or if the statements made are false, and that those making the claims were aware that they were false. In Snyder v. Phelps, the same rules apply, but the question is whether or not they apply when dealing with private persons, as opposed to public figures. In Hustler v. Falwell , it is clear that Jerry Falwell was a public figure. Public figures are not awarded damages when there is no clear malicious intent or indication that the information is being presented as fact. Snyder v. Phelps dealt with the same issue, but under the pretext of whether or not the ruling held for private persons. Albert Snyder argued that the Westboro Baptist Church had malicious intent when defaming his family. Although that may be true, the Supreme Court ruled that so long as their protest was legal in all regards their First Amendment rights protected them. The focus of both these cases is this: How far does the First Amendment reach when it involves defamation? Hustler v. Falwell specifically deals with defamation when it comes to public figures, while Snyder v. Phelps deals with defamation in the form of protest and religious freedom. The tort Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) pertains to both cases. Jerry Falwell claimed that Hustler Magazine caused IIED when it published a parody about him. Although it may have caused emotional distress, it could not be proved that it was intentional. In fact, because Hustler published the content as parody, it almost proves that it was not meant to cause distress, only to entertain readers. However, Snyder v. Phelps is a case where IIED is considered more seriously. But because the Westboro Baptist Church was protesting a legal distance away and was not actively disturbing the funeral of Matthew Snyder, IIED could not be proven. The only specific comments published about Matthew Snyder were taken from facts previously published in an obituary in the newspaper. The First Amendment pertains to each case in specific ways. Hustler Magazine exercised its free speech and free press by publishing the parody, and Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church practiced free speech, free religion, and the freedom of assembly, which partially protected all parties in their cases. Putting all personal feelings aside, I believe that the Supreme Court made the correct decision according to each partys First Amendment rights. There was no claim to fact by Hustler Magazine, and Phelps was breaking no law by picketing outside of the funeral of Matthew Snyder. In my opinion, the acts of the WBC were deplorable and deeply hurtful, however, they were not illegal. Hustler Magazines publication may have been insensitive, but that, too, was not illegal. Defamation is a

particularly difficult case because it is so personal. I think the Supreme Court ruled correctly in both sensitive cases.