The case between Phelps and Snyder has caused a stir in the social and political lives of the people pertaining to the judgment that was made. It has been termed as one among the most complicated cases that were ever handled in the USA courts. It was directly testing the freedom of speech and the nature of censorship that was levied on the citizens on what they could be allowed to say publicly. Although suppression of speech could be viewed as dictatorial and is not allowed in the USAout to be a threat to national security and inflict pain to the majority of the citizens.

In this case, we had two parties; one of them was Snyder’s father who had sued Phelps for causing him emotional torture when he and his group went about picketing in the burial of his son. Phelps had the belief that it was wrong for the US government to allow certain acts such as homosexuality in the military. He believed this was an illegal act that should never have been tolerated into the military by the government, and probably that was the reason to why the USA could be punished by calamities such as the 9/11. He used to attend the military funerals and could picket trying to air his views. Due to the circumstances under which his son had been laid to rest, Snyder opted to proceed to court suing them for causing him emotional stress, intrusion into his privacy and defamation. Since there was emotional pain and stress to the mourners at Snyder’s funeral, it could have been right for the court to give judgment in favor of Snyder. Unfortunately, it turned out that he was on the losing end by a ratio of 1: 8 judges.

ally, suggesting he was gay. The court failed to consider that the protests were privately based, and the protestors turned it into a media circus. d. The court stated that the place was properly guarded, and the placards could not be seen from such a distance. The case proceeded to the year 2007 when Snyder expected to receive compensation for the actions by Phelps. Unfortunately, the ruling did not happen in Snyder’s favor. He was forced to cater for compensating the defendants for the expenses they had incurred during the meeting and also for the court charges (Supreme Court 2011).

ion to legalize actions such as homosexuality was that of the government. There was no reason for Snyder to be humiliated. The actions by Phelps were wrong and should have been punished in the court of law. Despite the freedom of speech offered to people, they should sometimes be censored as they may end up affecting the rest of the people.

Despite the fact that people should be allowed freedom of speech, the freedom should in one way or another be regulated so that the people should not end up misusing it, or using it for wrong reasons and purposes. Countries such as the United States have always given freedom of speech a high priority preventing the censuring of the information by different parties. They have even gone further to enact rules that are meant to inhibit any form of censoring of the freedom of speech by the people. Consider the case of the First Amendment; we have a section that discourages any form of inhibiting the right of freedom. However, there are few exceptions if this involves hate speech. Some of the circumstances that have been used to assess the United States freedom of speech and the nature of censorship that has been employed include the case that involved John Zenger in between the years 1734 and 1735. Due to the sensitivity of the information that he used to the public in the newspapers, he had to be jailed without trial in the courts. However, the lawyer behind the case protected him well, and he had to be freed

In the case of Phelps and Snyder, it’s a form of hate speech considering the information that Phelps lets to the public. , Phelps should not have made the statements that he made. Let’s consider when he says that such actions are the ones that contributed to the 9/11 that had many people in the United States. At this point, it seems that he is rejoicing the death of the American citizens. Therefore, his speech qualifies to be called hate speech. Another instance of hate speech is when he states that there was no need for them to have grown in a Christian background.

Going by the word of Sarkar (55), he believes the right to freedom of speech should not be censored in any way. Instead, the people should be allowed to speak what they want. This Indian based author strongly disagrees with my argument. However, giving, some of which may end up contributing to insecurity in the society or even bring about social rivalry among the people. Sarkar (68) claims this is a form of civil liberty that should be strongly guarded by the government; it needs to be regulated by the government. Considering the case of Phelps and Snyder, we need to realize that this needs some form of regulation. Censorship can be used as a way of preventing conflicts in a country, where people are likely to be hurt by certain speeches.

Similarly, the case of Dennis and the United States government took the same path government. Due to the claims he had made he was taken to court with the claims that these were just views that would qualify to be called hate speechwas judged with for conspiracy and planning to overthrow the United States government. For this case, I very much disagree with the United States courts since they never considered the documents that had been presented. They should have launched an investigation before they could decide the judgment to make. Another almost similar case was one between New York and Gitlow. He had also made some publications claiming that there could be a possibility that the government could be overthrown; this was not welcomed. He was sued for making such claims and had to serve a sentence over hate speech claims (GITLOW v. NEW YORK 1925). The rights of Gitlow to freely express his views were not considered, and the ruling could have been based on political interests.

Based on the above cases, it is clear that there is a need for censoring. However, censoring has both advantages and disadvantages. Some of the rulings made in the above cases may have been wrongly considered leading to the wrong verdict. If censoring had been enforced, the accused persons could not be answerable for the claims they had made. However, for genuine cases, it is important that there should be censoring to prevent sensitive issues from getting to the public. Also, censoring could be used as a way of protecting the lives of the citizens in a country against the issues that may arise from some speeches. Conclusively, we can say that the Phelps case should serve as a limelight to the rest. There should have been censoring to edit the information that is left to the public. If censoring was present at that time, Snyder could not have felt the effects of the speech by Phelps. I, therefore, advocate for the implementation of censoring of speech and information. With this, the number of instances of hate speech can be rapidly reduced in most of the countries. People found making hate speech against the rules should be convicted in the court of law.

Works Cited

GITLOW v. NEW YORK, 1925. Accessed April 21, 2015. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1922/1922_19.

Supreme Court, March 2, 2011. Accessed April 21, 2015. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html

Sarkar Subhradipta. Right to free speech in a censored society. New Delhi: Sage Publishers, 2010. Print.