It's one thing to be bothered by speech of creeps along the lines of the *Mom, he's looking at me* kind of thing. Pointing out errors or inconsistencies in someone's thinking isn't hate speech as the PC crowd likes to portray it as.
Deliberately going out of your way to do something to someone that you know will hurt them in this way is a totally different issue. Stalking is not protected speech. Threats are not protected speech. Lying about the is not protected speech. People sue for liable, slander, and defamation of character, which probably would have been a better track for the Snyders to take.
The problem I have with some of these people who claim the First Amendment is at stake and that we have to allow the phelps free rein because otherwise we set a precedent and could lose our right to free speech is that not all speech is protected as it is, anyway. This is not going to start us down the slippery slope of losing our right to free speech.
If you are prohibited from physically assaulting someone and doing them physical harm, how is what phelps et al doing to a grieving family at their child's funeral any different?
Stalking is a different story and the first amendment doesn’t cover it. But, that’s not the issue here.
And what exactly makes stalking stalking that it can be prohibited? Why can't it be used against phelps in this case?
Tort law (which is the area of law applicable to this case) does not permit one to sue for emotional pain or suffering unless it is a result of some physical harm.
In most jurisdictions, stalking is a statutory offense which arises after a court order prohibiting the conduct is entered. In other words, the plaintiff would have to have a prior protective order in place before stalking can occur.