Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled that the homophobic Westboro Baptist Church has the First Amendment right to protest military funerals. With their boisterous antics and obscene signs, the Westboro protests offered the kind of free speech case that exemplifies the term "textbook." Does the Westboro Baptist Church's unique ability to offend common decency by trampling on the grief of the families of foreign soldiers with the hateful views somehow circumvent the protections of the First Amendment?
By 8-1, the Supreme Court voted no. It's one of those rulings that reminds you that at least on some very basic understandings of what "free speech," means, both conservative and moderate jurists on the court are on the same page: You don't forfeit your First Amendment rights just by being an asshole.
Or at least most of them are. Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter, much as he was in a prior First Amendment case over "crush videos" which feature people slowly crushing small animals to death with their feet. (Some people find this arousing). The court ruled that "[d]epictions of animal cruelty are not, as a class, categorically unprotected by the First Amendment," but Alito disagreed, calling it "a form of depraved entertainment that has no social value."
When it comes to First Amendment rights, Justice Alito draws the line at grieving military families and the suffering of small animals, which is actually kind of sweet. Wrong, but sweet. Who says conservative judges have no empathy?
