Even jerks are protected by the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court reaffirmed again yesterday with an 8-1 decision in the important free speech case, Snyder v. Phelps. The jerks at issue are members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder with signs that said “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

The High Court upheld the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that Matthew’s father, Albert Snyder, was not entitled to damages for the emotional distress inflicted by the protesters. Despite the 8-1 vote, the Court walked a delicate line in affirming that Westboro’s demonstration addressed issues of public concern and thus was entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection.

“Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Court. “Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials.”

Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter, and we can appreciate his argument that Albert Snyder was not a public figure but simply a father who wished to “bury his son in peace” and that the members of Westboro Baptist denied him the ability to do that. While no one objects to church members expressing their views in “countless available venues,” Justice Alito wrote, they picket military funerals to grab the public attention that attends these events. The First Amendment, he wrote, does not allow church members to “intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate.”

However, the church members were in a public street and at a predefined distance from the funeral. Speech about public affairs is the essence of self-government, Justice Roberts noted, and thus deserves protection regardless of its underlying value.

If nothing else, the Westboro bullies managed the rare feat of uniting the Court’s liberal and conservative wings. If the Court’s four liberals are willing to defend free speech for antiwar, antimilitary philistines, perhaps they’ll rethink their contradictory willingness to limit the political speech of businesses and other issue advocates in Citizens United (2010). Just asking.

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved