A Test of Free Speech: Applying the Ethics of Care to Coverage of Snyder V. Phelps

ABSTRACT

U.S. journalists must walk a fine line when reporting on hate speech. Journalists have a vested interest in standing up for the First Amendment, which gives them the freedom to do their work. However, the legal protection that people who spew hateful rhetoric enjoy vastly outweighs any protections upon which the victims can rely. As such, dealing with hate speech in the United States is an inherently ethical issue. Applying the ethics of care to their reporting would allow journalists a clear framework with which to counter hate speech. This study examines if and how journalists used the ethics of care framework when covering the Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court case through analysis of articles published in U.S. newspapers. Using these articles as a representative sample for the national coverage of the case, the study finds that journalists failed to consider the human impact of their reporting.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Christy Goldsmith for reading and providing feedback on early drafts of this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ In 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed in Matal v. Tam that the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act, which prohibits trademarks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Alito wrote in his opinion for that case, “The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate’” Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 198 L. Ed. 2d 366 (2017). This case, which is the most recent case affirming the protection of hate speech, is ultimately a trademark dispute, and there is not a clear victim, therefore it was not suitable for the purposes of answering our research questions.

² In the Terri Schiavo case, newspapers gave equal weight to the physicians’ testimonies and Schiavo’s family’s unfounded claims that she was “sometimes alert and could be rehabilitated” (Hodges et al., 2006, p. 221). This false balance perpetuated the incorrect belief that Schiavo’s husband was a murderer.

³ It is interesting to note that although the pieces did not, in general, blame the government for hate speech, the government is responsible for the creation of the First Amendment, whose broad protections allow for such speech. Further research could be done on what citizens perceive the role of the government and the courts to be in creating an environment where hate speech not only exists but has flourished.