Supporting the speech, opposing the message

This article was written by the Silver Chips Print Editorial Board and is intended to represent the official views of the newspaper.

As the dark train of cars inched along the rural Maryland road, the gloomy atmosphere belied the family's pride. The son they were burying had died honorably in combat. But one thousand feet away, dogged protesters screamed obscenities and defamed the fallen soldier.

It's the funeral scene of any family's worst nightmare. Yet this bizarre sight was a reality for Albert Snyder. He had to endure the delusions of members of the Westboro Baptist Church when they brought their trademark homophobic rants to Matthew Snyder's military funeral in 2006. In response, Albert Snyder sued the church, claiming emotional distress and invasion of privacy.

In the Supreme Court's March 2 ruling in Snyder v. Phelps, eight justices sided with the protesters' right to free speech, citing a need to protect one of the nation's most fundamental tenets. While the victory for Westboro might spark initial anger, the court was correct: The protesters deserve a place in hell, but not in prison.

Westboro preaches a message filled with prejudice, but even hate speech merits a place in our political discourse. Unless it causes harm to an individual, offensive speech is constitutionally protected. In this case, Snyder wasn't even aware of the protesters' presence until he saw a news report about them.

Although funerals deserve special consideration due to their sensitive nature, Westboro protesters stayed one thousand feet away and remained on public land. The ruling has made clear that states cannot limit protests based on content. That's fair. But simple restrictions on the time and place of protests at funerals are valid and often necessary to preserve the emotional integrity of the event — the Court should make the distinction clear.

The protection of the First Amendment isn't only a concern for journalists, though; it's a pivotal element of any citizen's life. Freedom of expression enhances debate by broadening our horizons and allowing a diverse array of ideas and opinions. It's a basic principle of our proud nation that openness and access will lead to better results.

We can only understand how strong the protection of the First Amendment must be when it extends to matters that challenge us and make us uncomfortable. Especially in cases like this where common sense clashes with constitutional precedent, the Supreme Court's commitment to free speech should make us feel safer.

And we are safe. Ironically, on the same day as the Court's ruling, the Chinese government decreed a severe crackdown on international journalists in Beijing, further restricting their citizens' right to access and express varying viewpoints.

The United States' commitment to free speech also juxtaposes with recent turmoil in the Middle East, where authoritarian governments have refused to grant citizens basic liberties. Resulting rebellions have proven that such repression breeds discontent. Yet they also expose the disparity between democracy's embrace of human rights and the tyrannical grip on power that authoritarian leaders exhibit. We should consider ourselves fortunate to live in a country where government actively strives to protect all forms of speech, even the ugliest.

Supreme Court decisions that protect conventional beliefs and widely accepted norms rarely incite this level of controversy. But divisive rulings like that in Snyder v. Phelps are frequently those that say the most about our country's identity and unique beliefs. In this case, it displays our unwavering dedication to the freedom of expression. We should therefore celebrate this decision's affirmation of the United States' pioneering attitude toward its citizens' individual liberties.