I should add that if they had been saying things that were specifically about the individuals involved, rather than general things about society/country/etc/., they would not have been protected. That’s the key: private vs. public concern.
Megyn Kelly, long before the decision was issued, predicted the outcome and that it would turn on just this issue: private vs. public concern.
Show me where the SC addressed the poem posted on the internet. I may have missed it, but it was quite clear in that document that the “Church” was directly attacking a private citizen for private actions.
I can quote the document too. Alito writes:
“Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury.1 The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.”
It is clear to me that this case is not First Amendment at all. No one tried to stop them from protesting as far as I know. Rather, it was a question of whether Westboro committed an intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury, and some judges, but obviously not all, agreed with that. Others, including most of the Supreme Court, did not. I agree with Alito. In fact, I think many here, even those who agree with the decision, agree that the whole affair was designed by Westboro not to address a greater issue but to provoke the family into violent action. They just feel that should be allowed because of free speech. Alito and I disagree.