I think Phelps and his breed deserve a punch in the mouth but I'm not sure if their stupid protests at funerals of soldiers shouldn't be allowed. Of course the actual question before the court is really whether a father of a Marine who was killed in Iraq can sue the Phelps clan for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Calling someone names at a relative's funeral would seem to meet that criteria as far as I'm concerned.
mad

But if this private lawsuit award stands does that mean that calling someone names over the net should also be grounds for a suit?? And it's not just speech it's also protest. Sticky issue.

Supreme Court Funeral Protest Case


Washington — The Supreme Court justices, hearing arguments Wednesday in a funeral protest case, sounded as though they are inclined to set a limit to the free-speech rule to permit lawsuits against those who target ordinary citizens with especially personal and hurtful attacks.

The First Amendment says the government may not infringe the freedom of speech, but it is less clear whether it also shields speakers from private lawsuits.

At issue Wednesday was whether the Maryland father of a Marine killed in Iraq could sue a Kansas family which protested near his funeral. The Phelps family not only held signs that said "Thank God for IEDs," but they also put on their website a message that accused Albert Snyder of having raised his son "to defy the Creator" and "serve the devil."

A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million in damages, but the award was thrown out on free-speech grounds.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer, usual defenders of the First Amendment, said they thought people could be sued for outrageous personal attacks.

Kennedy said "certain harassing conduct" was not always protected as free speech. "Torts and crimes are committed with words all the time," he said, referring to legal wrongs that result in lawsuits. "The First Amendment doesn't stop state tort law in appropriate circumstances," Breyer commented later.

Though the case is about funeral protests, Breyer said the court's ruling will have an impact on the Internet, since it tests whether personal attacks can lead to lawsuits.

Snyder sued the Phelps family under a common provision of state law that permits claims for an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

During Wednesday's argument, the justices seemed to agree that a general protest sign, such as "Stop the War" or even "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would be protected as free speech. The Phelps family crossed the line when they made clear they were targeting the dead Marine's father with their protest, argued Sean E. Summers, a lawyer for Snyder. "We have personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family," he said.

New Justice Elena Kagan drew the attention of her colleagues with her opening question to Margie J. Phelps. The Kansas lawyer who was defending her family began by saying their protests were intended to provoke "public discussion" about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kagan quickly pressed her. Would it be permissible, she asked, for the protesters to pick out "a wounded soldier and follow him around," holding "offensive and outrageous signs" near his home and calling him a "war criminal?" In such a case, "does he have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?" Kagan said.

Phelps hesitated, but then said no. "My answer, Justice Kagan, is: No, I don't believe that person should have a cause of action."

That answer appeared to turn the argument against Phelps and the funeral protesters....

"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives."
Winter is Coming

Now this is the Law of the Jungle—as old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.