“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment is my favorite amendment, and probably one of my favorite brief pieces of writing out of any. I hold it in high regard because of the kind of society it fosters. Freedom of expression is what gives us an almost limitless variety of music, art, literature, Web sites and conversation. There are times, however, when this type of society is not so easily defended. Because of the powers granted by the First Amendment, the Ku Klux Klan can assemble and spew ignorant vitriol through megaphones in a crowded downtown. Web sites can post videos that, although ostensibly pornographic and therefore an artistic form of expression, are likely to disgust, rather than turn on, most people. It even protects the more trivial abominations of our time, such as allowing Heidi Montag to give a “musical” performance on national television.

Although each of us have certain individuals or groups that we would like to exclude from the protective umbrella offered by the First Amendment, I think it is intuitive that if you relish the occasionally offensive satirical periodical The Onion, you are obligated to tolerate the existence of Pat Robertson’s crazy ass on “The 700 Club.” There is one group, however, that most everybody would like to silence.

That group is the Westboro Baptist Church. If I label Pat Robertson crazy, the adjective I would apply to Fred Phelps, the leader of this independent Baptist church based in Topeka, Kan., is “not printable.” You might not immediately recognize the name of the group, but you are probably familiar with its tactics. The WBC made its way to national headlines for their protests outside of the funerals of fallen soldiers, where it attributes the deaths to God’s vengeance for America’s tolerance of homosexuality. Members of the WBC hold signs declaring “Semper Fi, Semper Fags,” and “God Hates Dead Soldiers.”

When the WBC protested outside of the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, they abided by Massachusetts state law and remained 1,000 feet from the service. One thousand feet was not enough for the slain Marine’s father, who sued the WBC. The York Daily Record reported that Snyder won the case and was awarded damages amounting to $10.9 million. That decision was overturned after the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Phelps’ protest was protected speech. Snyder then appealed to the Supreme Court, who has agreed to take on the case when it reconvenes for the fall session.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of unpopular speech before, as in Texas v. Johnson, where the Supreme Court overturned state laws prohibiting the desecration of the American flag. In Hustler Magazine v. Fallwell, Hustler magazine’s unflattering fictional tale featuring Fallwell and his mother was upheld as protected speech.

Although I would like to, I cannot offer a strong opinion on how I would like this case to be decided. The difficulty in weighing the competing interests – maintaining a robust freedom of speech and assembly, the right to privacy during memorial services, and deciding whether disruptive demonstrators can be held financially liable for their conduct – makes this case an appropriate undertaking for the nation’s highest court. I am leery of any dilution of the First Amendment; at the same time, I would not be fond of a legal system that prevents Snyder’s father and others like him from seeking financial retribution from despicable actors like Phelps. Complexities and intellectual hardships notwithstanding, this case will be one worth following.