The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing an emotional and controversial case that pits human decency and the rights of a family to grieve a fallen soldier against the rights to free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.

In 2006, Albert Snyder’s son died in Iraq where he was serving as a Marine.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, picketed at the funeral, using the funeral to make their point that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for Americans’ immorality. They expressed objections to U.S. tolerance of homosexuality and abortion. They held signs saying, “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God Hates the USA,” but stood a distance from the funeral itself.

Snyder sued the church for causing him emotional distress at a private event.  According to CBS News, Snyder won an $11 million verdict against the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. A judge reduced the award to $5 million before the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, overturned the ruling stating that First Amendment rights protected the protesters.

Now in the Supreme Court, the justices are struggling to come to a decision: rule in favor of First Amendment rights or limit those rights in order to protect those who lost their sons.

According to The New York Times, Margie Phelps, the attorney for the protestors and daughter of the church pastor, said she expects the Supreme Court to uphold the federal appeals court decision.

“They’re going to uphold the law of the land that you may express a contrary view in a public forum without being sued,” Phelps said in The New York Times.

The CBS News website stated that 48 states, 42 U.S. senators, and veteran groups have sided with the Snyders and asked the high court to rule against the protesters for “psychological terrorism.”

The protestors argue that they are protected by the First Amendment and that they abided by local ordinances by standing a specified distance from the procession.

“No American should ever be required to apologize for following his or her conscience,” Phelps said, according to CBS News.

People around CHS have mixed reactions to the protesters’ actions.

“It’s not designed to educate, it’s not designed to inform, it’s purely designed to upset this family,” psychology teacher David Aiello said.

While many people find the content of the speech repulsive, some of them question whether the government should suppress it.  History teacher Rick Kordenbrock shares that point of view.

“I don’t like [what they say],” Kordenbrock said.  “It’s distasteful, but as a matter of First Amendment rights, should the government in the form of police be out there arresting these people and putting them in jail because they did it? No, I don’t think so because after all it’s speech.”