>FWIW, while I detest Westboro's behavior, I think the court ruled correctly in this case. It's not free speech unless we protect the right to say things we hate.
>
>
>I think some people feel safe in holding to that position when the target of the hate speech doesn't hit close to home.

AFAIK, there is a federal law against hate crimes, but not hate speech. They may get around the libel and defamation laws by not targeting a specific individual in their signs.

As despicable as they are, I agree with the court. If we start restricting freedom of speech beyond direct incitement to violence, then we quickly reach a point where one group is forcing their opinions upon everyone else and not allowing those who disagree with them any say. Freedom of speech must take precedence.

What's more appropriate is for states to create their own laws to protect funerals from demonstrations. There needs to be a buffer zone.

There's an interesting article on why the court ruled as it did here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056613,00.html