Supremes: Even the Detestable Protests by The Crazy Kansas Church Are Protected Under the First Amendment

In my opinion, the Supreme Court got this one right even though I can't stand Fred Phelps and his band of inbred  morons:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment," Roberts wrote, "and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where Snyder's funeral was to be held.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and other family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

Sam Alito was the lone dissenter,stresses the value of the tort called "intentional infliction of emotional distress" (h/t Althouse):

Respondents’ outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered.

In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.

If the First Amendment means what it says, you have to allow this kind of protest even though it's highly objectionable and offensive to most people. You can't be a strict constructionist and then try and ban speech you don't like.

While these protests can't be banned, there are ways to ensure they don't get close enough to military funerals to cause a problem.  I believe the Patriot Guard Riders have handled that by simply moving the perimeter of a funeral out far enough to keep the loons at bay.  There's nothing unconstitutional about that.