A few months ago, members of the hate group known as the Westboro Baptist Church came here to protest our community's acceptance of homosexuals and Jews. The group's inflammatory and bigoted message incensed many members of our community, which motivated our response-a program called "Celebrate Brandeis" in which we reaffirmed our values of tolerance and diversity. Unfortunately, the WBC's mission includes more than reminding college students that ignorant people still exist.The WBC first gained media attention through their protests of the funerals of soldiers who died overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. They claimed that God was killing the soldiers because America is too tolerant of gays, and they advertised their views with picket signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." The father of Matthew Snyder, a fallen marine, was so offended by these protests that he took Fred Phelps, the leader of the WBC, to court.

According to the Supreme Court's opinion published on its website, Snyder's suit claimed that the church was guilty of "intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy," and Snyder was awarded millions in monetary damages. However, Phelps appealed, claiming that the decision was excessive and in violation of the protections afforded by the First Amendment. The Fourth Circuit Court reversed the decision, agreeing that the WBC's message is protected under the First Amendment. Eventually, the case made its way to the Supreme Court, where, on March 2, the Court voted in an eight-to-one decision upholding the WBC's right to free speech.

While I find the vitriol that Phelps and his so-called "church" spew to be vile and despicable, I cannot help but agree with the Supreme Court's decision to defend them under the First Amendment. There is no doubt that any tolerant member of society would be shocked and appalled by the actions and words of the WBC. However, just because their speech is disgusting does not mean it ought to be curtailed.

The concept of free speech means that those with ideas, regardless of what they are and whom they may offend, can express those ideas without fear of legal recourse. To limit legalized speech to speech that is not considered offensive is a dangerous precedent indeed.

The idea of emotionally disturbing speech is often used to capture the attention of an audience. Organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals frequently use images or descriptions of dead or abused animals to offend our sensibilities and rouse an emotional response. Though it is plainly obvious that arguing for the humane treatment for animals is far more acceptable than preaching that America is doomed because we accept those whom God supposedly hates, there is no doubt that the delivery of some animal advocacy groups' messages has the capacity to offend.

The case also touched upon how the funeral-goers claimed to be a captive audience. The Court ruled this invalid because the picketers were far enough away that Snyder, the soldier's father, could barely see the tops of the signs or hear the protestors' shouts from where he was. Again, albeit the WBC protesting at a military funeral for a soldier who sacrificed his life for his country is nauseatingly infuriating, that is not a justification for deeming their protests criminal activity. Picketing in such a manner that the target audience will be forced to come across the protests is commonplace in our society. For example, unions on strike picket in front of factories in order to force those who enter the factory cross the picket line and thus hear the protesters' message. Such protests are also protected under the right to free assembly that is stated in the First Amendment. As long as these assemblies remain peaceful, as enraging and provocative as their tone may be, they should receive equal protection under the law.

Though the Court has ruled in a manner that is against most of our emotional desires to see these racist homophobes dried of all of their assets and thrown behind bars for their egregious actions, we ought to take comfort in the fact that if our justice system will protect this sort of speech, then the First Amendment is alive and well. Instead of being discouraged that groups like the WBC can continue to spread their hatred, we, as Americans and Brandeisians, are also free to voice our opinions and should continue to stand united and resolute in the face of that hatred.