Η ΑΙΧΜΗΡΗ ΚΡΙΤΙΚΗ ΩΣ ΣΥΝΤΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ - page 44

152 §£©¡œ¡¦¯ š£²±£°¯
ÆÀÑÈ ÒÎ× Å½ÄÉËÎ× Ì¾ÇÎ×, ÇÉÁ ÒÈÍ ËнÑÈ ÒÎ× Åн ÁÐÎÖ¼Õ Ñ×ÍÒÁnjÁÒÉË¼Õ ÐÎ-
ÑÒÁѽÁÕ, ÅÑÒÉØÎÍÒÁÕ ÁÎËÌÅÉÑÒÉËÏÕ ÑÒÈ ÆÀÑÈ ÒÎ× Å½ÄÉËÎ× Ì¾ÇÎ×.400 ¥ ÅÍ Ì¾ÇÔ
׍¾ÓÅÑÈ, ÁоÌÎ Î× ÄÅÍ ÅÊÅÒÑÓÈËÅ Á¾ ÒÎ ¡š ÔÕ ×¾ÓÅÑÈ Ä×ÑƼŒÈÑÈÕ, ōÉ-
ËÁÌŽÒÁÉ ÒÉÕ ÂÁÑÉË»Õ ÁÐÖ»Õ ÒÈÕ New York Times ËÁÉ ÒÈÕ Dun & Bradstreet Åн ÒÈÕ
ÁÍÇËÈÕ ÐÎÑÒÁѽÁÕ ÒÎ× ÄȌÎѽÎ× ÄÉÁ̾ÇÎ×, ÑÒÉÕ ÎÎ½ÅÕ ËÁÉ ÐÈÒÏÕ ÁÐÁ»ŒÅÉ,
ËÁÉ ŒÁÕ ÁлÖÅÉ Œ½Á Ð¾ÑÆÁÒÈ ÅЌÈÍŽÁ ÒÎ× šÉËÁÑÒÈнÎ× ÇÉÁ ÒÈÍ Á¾ÐÉÑÒÈ »ÍÍÎÉÁ
ÒÎ× Ó»ŒÁÒÎÕ ÄȌÎѽÎ× ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ, ÅÍÏ ÅÍÄ»ÖÅÒÁÉ ÍÁ ÐΌÈÍÀÅÉ ÒÈ ÖмÑÈ ÒÈÕ
ÅÍ Ì¾ÇÔ ËÁÒÈÇÎнÁÕ ÔÕ Œ¾ÍÈÕ ÐÎڍ¾ÓÅÑÈÕ ÁÐÎÖ¼Õ Ñ×ÍÒÁnjÁÒÉË¼Õ ÐÎÑÒÁѽÁÕ
ÑÒÎ×Õ Ä×ÑÆȌÉÑÒÉËÎÀÕ ÉÑÖ×ÐÉьÎÀÕ.
¥ ÅÍÁǾŒÅÍÈ Westboro Baptist Church, ŒÅ ÅˍоÑԍΠÒÎÍ Fred Phelps,
ÁÎÒÅÌÎÀÑÅ ÎÐÇÍÔÑÈ È ÎÎ½Á ½ÑÒÅ×Å ¾ÒÉ Î ›Å¾Õ ÒɌÔÐŽ ÒÉÕ ¥ž¡ ÇÉÁ ÒÈÍ ÁÍÎ-
Ö¼ ÑÒÈÍ ÎŒÎÆ×ÌÎÆÉ̽Á, ÉĽÔÕ ÑÒÎÍ ÁŒÅÐÉËÁÍÉ˾ ÑÒÐÁÒ¾. ¥ ÅÍ Ì¾ÇÔ ÎÐÇÍÔ-
ÑÈ ÄÉÁļÌÔÑÅ ÑÒÈÍ ËÈÄŽÁ ÒÎ× ×ÉÎÀ ÒÎ× ÅÍÇÎÍÒÎÕ Matthew Snyder, Π΍νÎÕ
ÑËÎÒÏÓÈËÅ ËÁÒ ÒÈ ÄÉÐËÅÉÁ ÅÖÓÐ΍ÐÁÊÉÏÍ ÑÒÎ ¦ÐË ËÁÉ ÁÍÁÐÒ¼ÓÈËÁÍ ÅÊ×ÂÐÉ-
ÑÒÉˍÁ; ŒÅ Ñ×ÍÓ¼ŒÁÒÁ, ¾ÔÕ «›Å» ŒÎ× Ñ’ Å×ÖÁÐÉÑÒÏ ÇÉÁ ÒÎ×Õ ÍÅËÐÎÀÕ ÑÒÐÁ-
ÒÉÏÒÅÕ», «Î ›Å¾Õ ÑÁÕ ŒÉÑŽ», «ÓÁ ÁÕ ÑÒÈÍ Ë¾ÌÁÑÈ» Ë.̍. O Snyder, ËÁÒ ÒÈ ÄÉ-
ÐËÅÉÁ ÒÈÕ ËÈÄŽÁÕ, ŒÎÐÎÀÑÅ ÍÁ ÄÅÉ ÒÁ Á;, ÁÌÌÄÅÍ ÇÍÏÐÉØÅ ÒÎ ÅÐÉÅÖ¾ŒÅ;
ÒÎ×Õ, ÒΠ΍νЍÌÈÐÎÆÎмÓÈËÅ ŒÅÒ»ÅÉÒÁ Á¾ ÅÉÄÈÑÅÎÇÐÁÆÉ˾ Ð¾ÇÐÁŒŒÁ
ÒÈÕ ÒÈÌžÐÁÑÈÕ. £Í Ñ×ÍÅÖŽÁ, È ÅÍÁÇΌ»ÍÈ ÁÍ»ÆÅÐÅ ÑÒÈÍ ÉÑÒÎÑÅ̽ÄÁ ÒÈÕ ¾ÒÉ Î
Snyder «Å½ÖÅ ÁÍÁÒÐÁÆŽ ÇÉÁ ÒÎ šÉÂÎÌλ ËÁÉ «»ŒÁÓÅ ÍÁ ÁÃÈÆ ÒÎ ›Å¾». ¯ ÅÍ-
ÇÔÍ ÑËÈÑÅ ÁÇÔǼ ÁÎØȌ½ÔÑÈÕ ŒÅ ÂÑÈ ÒÉÕ ÁÄÉË΍ÐÁʽÅÕ ÒÈÕ Ä×ÑƼŒÈÑÈÕ,
ÒÈÕ ÐÎÑÂÎÌ¼Õ ÉÄÉÔÒÉËÎÀ ½Î×, ÅÑËŌŒ»ÍÈÕ Ð¾ËÌÈÑÈÕ ÈÓÉË¼Õ ÂÌÂÈÕ, ÄÉŽÑ-
Ä×ÑÈÕ ÑÒÈÍ ÁÎŒ¾ÍÔÑÈ ËÁÉ ÎÌÉÒÉË¼Õ Ñ×ÍԌÎѽÁÕ. ŸÒÈ Ñ×ÇËÅËÐɌ»ÍÈ ×¾ÓÅ-
ÑÈ ËнÓÈËÅ Á¾ ÒÎ ¡š È Ñ×ÍÄÐΌ¼ ÒÔÍ ÐÎڍÎÓ»ÑÅÔÍ ÒÈÕ ÁÄÉË΍ÐÁʽÁÕ ÒÈÕ
ÅÑËŌŒ»ÍÈÕ Ð¾ËÌÈÑÈÕ ÈÓÉË¼Õ ÂÌÂÈÕ, ÄÅÄΌ»ÍÎ× ¾ÒÉ Î ÉÑÖ×ÐÉь¾Õ ÒÎ× ÅÍÇÎ-
ÍÒÎÕ Åн Ä×ÑƼŒÈÑÈÕ Å½ÖÅ ÁÎÐÐÉÆÓŽ Á¾ ÒÎ ÐÔÒÎÂӌÉÎ ÄÉËÁÑÒ¼ÐÉÎ.401 ±Î
400. ¢Ì. Sacks D.P., Snyder v. Phelps: a slice of the facts and half an opinion, 2011 Cardozo
L.Rev. de novo 64, 65 (2011)
401. ¢Ì. Snyder v. Phelps, 533 F. Supp. 2d 567, 572-573 (D. Md. 2008), («Snyder originally
brought five counts against Defendants--defamation, intrusion upon seclusion,
publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil
conspiracy. After hearing oral arguments..., this Court granted Defendants’ motions
for summary judgment as to the defamation and publicity given to private life claims.
As to the defamation count, this Court noted at the hearing that,...,the elements
of a defamation claim under Maryland law include (1) that Defendants made a
defamatory communication to a third person, (2) that the statement was false, (3)
that Defendants were at fault in communicating the statement, and (4) that Plaintiff
suffered harm. This Court held that the first element, a defamatory communication,
was not satisfied because the content of the «epic» posted on the church’s website
was essentially Phelps-Roper’s religious opinion and would not realistically tend
to expose Snyder to public hatred or scorn. Accordingly, Defendants’ motions for
summary judgment were granted as to the defamation claim»). ™ÉÁ ÒÁ ÐÎÂÌÈ-