If they can prove that the Speach intended Intentional Harm--i.e. that it was the content and manner of the specific speach itself, and not the ideas it represented--I think they might have a case. The Constitution protects dissenting opnions, no matter what the fourm, and the law only has a place in things when two rights come into conflict: in this case, the rights of the protesters to speak vs. the rights of the family to be protected from assult, both physical and mental. I think if the family can prove the protestes caused significant distress, then it really comes down to how the court plays out. This one will be iteresting to watch becuse IMHO, Kennedy could go either way, so argumets are actully significant. I suspect after Citizens United, though, that the court will rule in favor of Westboro, the argument for Synder being a little too "liberal touchy-feely". Anything involving a so-called "collective right" or "implied right" is not very popular right now in rightest jurisprudence--although it may also come down to the specifics and degrees of the case, I've been surprised before.
I disagree. It's not the place of Government to stop Hate Speech, although I believe it is our duty as private citizens to combat it wherever it appears. The law shouldn't be in the business of second guessing intentions--as I said, speech should only be limited where it impinges upon the rights of others.