Expressing oneself is both a freedom and a privilege of living in a democratic society. A functioning democracy protects our rights during moments in which we feel our freedoms are violated. For instance, protecting free speech requires us to preserve that freedom for every individual and accept all forms of speech, regardless of their popularity. Yet if we protect all forms of speech under blind justice, we may never understand the importance of protecting our minds and bodies from speech that defiles human dignity. When applied to unpopular or hateful sentiments, free speech can become difficult to uphold in practice.

The Westboro Baptist Church is an organization known for its opposition to homosexuality and religious and ethnic groups. Picketing military funerals is one of the group's controversial protest activities. After members of the WBC protested at the funeral of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder, his father, Albert Snyder, filed a lawsuit against the WBC and its leader, Fred Phelps, for an invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case reached the Supreme Court and was heard on Oct. 6, 2010.

The Supreme Court's decision over the WBC ruled that the First Amendment was applicable to the organization's right to protest. The legality of the case, as well as the organization's negative behavior, has drawn broad attention from the public, both from those who support the decision and those who reject it.

Although there is legal justification to rule in favor of the WBC, there are reasons for supporting Snyder that one must take into account.

The funeral of a fallen soldier is a private and religious occasion. It is a place of respect and remembrance for the life of a human being, one that deserves protection from disturbance by the government.

It is therefore difficult to bear the sudden appearance of parishioners from the WBC. They are known to carry large, antagonizing posters while singing protest songs. This loud environment is a deliberate means to inflict pain upon the existent sorrow of the mourners. The confrontational presence of the WBC is an interference on the family's ability to mourn and show religious respect to the deceased. Showing proper grievance and respect becomes difficult while internalizing hate channeled from an external source.

There should be a rational means to properly commemorate the deceased and preserve peace throughout the service. State and federal regulations should act in the family's best interest to protect their privacy and emotional security.

Moreover, a funeral protest is an exploitation of a family's private emotional distress. For the duration of the funeral, the property on which the ceremony is held becomes a privately used domain. Unless stated, public access to the funeral of a soldier is undoubtedly limited to those who were invited or were close with the deceased. Attendees of the funeral would naturally assume that privacy needs to be respected. A funeral protest would be a violation of the mourners' privacy.

I cannot accept a funeral as a proper forum for the formal declaration of a group's beliefs. Normally, we think of a funeral as an event to commemorate the particular individual who passed away and not as an event for public use. It seems as though the WBC has used every military funeral as a chance to verbally attack or privately harass the deceased for the individual's orientation. This is by no means a protest but rather a public display of discrimination. Moreover, funerals do not capture the broad audience that a protest is expected to provide

Although the First Amendment allows us to share our opinions in a democratic society, should free speech allow a forum that is open to hate? We express ourselves through an unlimited array of media, whether it is through the Internet, our papers or our own opinions. The WBC can indeed make a public case for their beliefs just as any American has the right to do. However, they have argued for their anti-gay beliefs at the funerals of American soldiers, a delicate setting that demands respect and morality.

Overall, Snyder's legal battle against the WBC was a struggle for empathy. As would any individual, Snyder defended his emotions when an event challenged the nature of his conscience. He sought compensation for a personal loss that was ultimately propelled by an intuitive search for justice.

Maintaining the framework of our democracy comes with both a legal application of the law and a humanistic approach to society. Although the Supreme Court upheld an accurate interpretation of the First Amendment, they should, perhaps, also consider preserving the ethical values by which we live. The WBC constitutes the tiniest fraction of our nation. The court case acts as a reminder of the freedoms and righteous causes that we truly value in our society.