The opinion noted that the case was decided based on the specific circumstances of Matthew Snyder’s funeral, and shouldn’t be construed as a broad ruling.

The opinion noted that the case was decided based on the specific circumstances of Matthew Snyder’s funeral, and shouldn’t be construed as a broad ruling.

the decision could hurt the fund raising efforts of far right groups who may have trouble convincing donors that religious speech will soon be penalized because of the gay agenda.

Why? They’ll just continue saying it anyway. Say it enough, and people will believe it, they won’t bother checking to see whether it’s true, because it’s a fine, upstanding God-Fearing Christian group that says it. Since when have facts ever bothered those organisations, IFI, Coral Ridge etc ?

Mr. Phelps’ choice of this location is as much an exercise of his free speech as speech itself. In his own, admittedly distorted worldview. the death of Mr. Synder’s son is “proof” that God hates our way of life and the broader society’s limited tolerance of it. Mr. Phelps is, I believe, behaving as if he thought of himself as a prophet who is pointing to the proof of God’s wrath. He is “bearing witness” to God’s witness by pointing to the “signs” that “He” is punishing us.

I’d like to see Justice Samuel A. Alito offer a limiting principle that would help us understand why he, as an appeals court judge for the third circuit, voted to strike down as unconstitutional Pennsylvania’s gay-inclusive hate crime law and upholding the right of anti-gay preachers to protest at a gay pride festival while invoking “fighting words” doctrine to protect Mr. Snyder from Mr. Phelps. Does he have a limiting principle to help us understand what he considers “fighting words” and what he merely considers offensive speech? or is he more inclined to favor the party that is engaging in an activity that is clearly in line with his ideological worldview?