In Snyder vs. Phelps the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church members' right to protest at a military funeral. In this case, "at" means something like 1,000 yards away and possibly in accordance with other locally devised and enforced rules. The issue was evaluated by the Justices in terms of free speech, and whether the speech was injurious or injury was only the fallout.I agree with the majority. The protesters intended to hijack one rhetorical situation--a military funeral--and introduce a second rhetorical situation in which state policy is the target. They did not silence or prevent the funeral. And while their speech act insults the mourners, the inflammatory signage is tactical first and foremost.
The policy under attack concerns gays serving in the military. The soldier being buried was not a homosexual. What if he had been? Could the protesters' intent to injure then be more easily argued?
