To be fair...

I found this article in the British Guardian paper... and I thought it was an excellent defense of the SCotUS decision in the Snyder v. Phelps case.

I want to stress that Alito wasn't saying WBC doesn't have the right to protest and say what they want, but he feels the criteria for verbal assault and libel currently established under US Federal law has been met and that the WBC can be made to pay damages under tort law.

I also want to say that I am utterly convinced that THIS sort of attention is the only reason the WBC is doing what they do... they know, with complete certainty, that the media and the vast public eye will focus instantly on them if they are as offensive and controversial as they can be, all the time. It is the ONLY reason anyone outside of the State of Kansas even knows who the WBC is and what they stand for.

Still, I can't deny that Chief Justice Roberts has a point... distasteful though it may be, if we deny these people their right to say what they wish, then we limit what all of us can say. It is a sure and certain road to exactly the kind of limited individual freedoms that we see all over Europe today.