"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Spewing hatred towards the deceased at a funeral in front of his family qualifies as "Fighting Words" if anything does.
Maybe it will take an actual physical fight for the Supreme Court to realize this.
Well said.
As Mark Levin just said when commenting on this case, the Supreme Court has applied a number of tests for various types of speech in - as Levin said -- "making a mess" of the first amendment over the years.
Yet in this case (except for possibly Alito), they took a purist's approach to the first amendment. Levin wondered why. As he said, in this case "I sure as hell would have looked for one."
My understanding of the case was that the family was not even aware of the protesters, until they saw it later on TV.