Talk:Snyder v. Phelps

Something to possibly add
I read what I believe is a summary of the Supreme Court's opinion, and would like to add something to paragraph 2 of their decision in this article, but would like confirmation that my interpretation of it is correct, before I add it:

However the Court did state that restricting the choice of where to picket in protest "is not beyond the Government's regulatory reach," and mentioned that Maryland has enacted a law preventing funeral picketings, but that this was not in effect at the time of the funeral.

I'm not sure my addition implies that the Court suggests that the government should make a law preventing funeral picketings, nor am I sure that this is the intention of the summary.

I found the article at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html

Sincerely, Ezuvian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezuvian (talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the article and your interpretation is correct. The court held up the right to free speech but implied that laws could (and have been) enacted to regulate where and when that kind of speech is allowed. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with that, but please be careful about how much you quote verbatim from a copywritten source.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Informal GA review
This article needs significant improvement in at least 3 areas: I commend all of the contributions made to this article but all in all it needs a lot of work to get to GA status. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead. The significance of this case wasn't its doctrinal impact, it was the outrageous facts and the controversy it stirred both before and after the Supreme Court's ruling. The lead turns this on its head. The first few sentences (especially the opening sentence) should be about the funeral and the church. A sentence or two about tort law can come after that.
 * 2) Opinion of the Court. This section has only four sentences about the opinion of the court. It doesn't even include the words "emotional distress" that are in the first sentence of the article. This section needs to be greatly expanded to explain the Court's holdings and reasoning. (The last 3 paragraphs aren't the opinion of the Court so they belong in a separate section.)
 * 3) Impact and commentary. Every GA about a court decision says something about the impact of the decision. Commentary by politicians, academics, etc. Also, as I mentioned above, the real significance of this case was the huge media frenzy the case created. But this isn't mentioned either.
 * Nstrauss, I kinda thought that this might happen. I happened upon this article, and did some significant improvements, but since I'm unfamiliar with law articles, I wasn't sure that its structure was right, or that it's comprehensive enough.  I realize now that I should have gotten feedback from editors more familiar with this kind of article before I submitted it to GAC.  I agree that this article needs more work, but to be honest, I'm not sure that I have the expertise to do it.  Consequently, I agree that this article isn't ready for GA status, so I'm removing it from GAC.  Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Snyder v. Phelps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906153102/http://www.ydr.com/vets/ci_7555437 to http://www.ydr.com/vets/ci_7555437
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515215306/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/02/snyder-familys-fight-against-the-westboro-baptist-church/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/02/snyder-familys-fight-against-the-westboro-baptist-church/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208053429/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/supreme-court-upholds-westboro.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/supreme-court-upholds-westboro.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109180853/http://www.ydr.com/westboro to http://www.ydr.com/westboro

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)