In your post, you stated:

Snyder v. Phelpswas a lawsuit filed by the family of Matthew Snyder, an ex-Marine Lance Cpl., following the picketing of Westboro Baptist Church Members at his funeral. The family alleged that the protestors inflicted emotional distress by displaying the words "Fag troops" and "Thank God for dead soldiers". They also accused the family of defamation and invasion of privacy. Snyder's family won the case at the District Court in a decision that awarded them $5 million in damages. However, the District Court's decision was reversed on appeal, with the Court of Appeal holding that the lower Court's decision infringed on the protestors' freedom of religious expression under the First Amendment. The case eventually terminated at the Supreme Court with the principal legal question interrogating whether protestors were protected by intentional infliction of emotional distress liability within the scope of the First Amendment. The Apex Court's decision maintained that the First Amendment shielded protestors against liability since the speech made at Matthew Snyder's funeral was made in a public space, and they raised legitimate public concerns. As you noted, the Supreme Court held that the speech in the Westboro case was protected speech and not fighting words. But, how would you respond to some commentators who argued that a funeral is inherently a sensitive place and that even if the messages weren't directed to the mourners that the protest shouldn't have been allowed? Simply put some people support content and time as well as place limitations on speech that would bar "hate speech" or "speech that inherently causes violence." What are your ideas on this line of argument?