Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to take an interesting case: whether the freakishly homophobic preacher, Fred Phelps, violated the rights of the family of Matthew Snyder, a Marine who died in combat in Iraq.

The Rev. Phelps, you see, had the bad grace to picket the funeral of Lance Corporal Snyder in some twisted attempt to denounce the policy allowing gays to serve in the military so long as they don’t come out of the closet.

Phelps and his little flock carried hideous signs that said, “God Hates the USA” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” as well as crude slurs against gays: “Semper Fi Fags,” and “Fag Troops,” among them, and anti-Catholic signs, such as “Pope in Hell.”

The Snyder family sued Phelps for invading their privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress, including by posting their hateful comments on their website.

A lower court ruled in the family’s favor, awarding them $10 million. But it was overturned on appeal, and now the Supremes will hear it.

Michael Smerconish, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, wrote a column on Sunday urging the Court to rule against Phelps. Smerconish said that Phelps was interfering with the Snyder family’s freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

But Smerconish didn’t even deal with the question of Phelps’s right to say what he wanted to on his website, which by no means was interfering with family’s funeral.

And Smerconish mistakenly said that “because the Westboro demonstrators weren’t protesting on a street corner or in a public park,” they were infringing on the Snyder’s rights. But Phelps & Co. were on public property, and were being escorted by the police.

As discourteous and reprehensible as Phelps was, I still believe he was well within his First Amendment rights to say what he wanted.

What if peace activists wanted to stage a protest outside of Arlington National Cemetery when a funeral was going on? Should that be disallowed, too?

Smerconish evidently thinks so, since he says that Phelps’s claim to a free speech right is secondary to “the Snyders’ right to peaceably gather at a Catholic funeral. Especially when that practice involved mourning the death of an American hero.”

This amounts to censorship based on the beliefs of the speaker, and that is anathema to the First Amendment.

I hate Reverend Phelps’s speech. But the First Amendment is there to protect speech that we find rude and reprehensible.

Otherwise, we wouldn’t need it.

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine. To subscribe for just $14.97 a year, just click here.