Balancing Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims and First Amendment Protections in <i>Snyder v. Phelps</i>

The article explores the delicate balance between First Amendment protections and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claims, using the Snyder v. Phelps case as a focal point. It argues that while the Supreme Court correctly ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church's free speech rights, the current legal framework for balancing these interests is outdated. The author proposes an "enhanced publicity test" to modernize the analysis, ensuring that speech contributing to public discourse is protected while safeguarding individuals from severe emotional harm caused by malicious speech.