New York:
The US Supreme Court in its ruling has upheld the right to wage ugly protests at funerals under the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.
The case involved a Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, which had organized demonstrations at many military funerals with placards like "God Hates the USA" for allowing homosexuals to serve in the military.
The 8-1 ruling said the fundamental right of free speech overrides the rights of the family to privacy and protection from emotional distress.
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion
"On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," he concluded.
"As a nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.
In 2006, the Church protesters showed up at the funeral in Maryland for Marine Lance Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.
Snyder was not gay but this was an opportunity for the protesters to express their views against homosexuality.
The protesters were kept 1000 feet away from the church and the ceremony was not disrupted.
However, they held up placards like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates Fags".
Snyder's father sued for emotional distress and was awarded USD 5 million by a jury.
The Supreme Court, however, overturned the decision on the grounds that the church group could not be punished for expressing their views, even though it was deeply troublesome for the Snyder family.
The judgment has led to a great deal of debate in the US on how far the First Amendment should be stretched.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that society could debate issues without riding roughshod over people's feelings.
"Respondents' outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered," Alito wrote.
"In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalisation of innocent victims like petitioner," he concluded.