(Thumbnail Image: The Kansas City Star)

The Supreme Court has decided to hear an emotionally-charged case pitting freedom of speech and religion against the right to privacy.

"The U.S. Supreme Court is stepping into the legal battle between a dad whose son was killed in action in Iraq, and the head of a so-called church in Kansas who showed up at the fallen Marine's funeral to protest tolerance for gays by the government and the military.” (Fox News)

Westboro Church first gained national notoriety with inflammatory signs reading, “Thank God for dead soldiers." Church members say battlefield deaths are a sign of divine retribution for the military’s "Don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.

A report on Lancaster, Pennsylvania's NBC affiliate takes an emotional angle -- focusing entirely on the reaction of local veterans.

Reporter: “These veterans have been through a lot. ... But what they see on the screen even they can’t believe. ... The church’s words make their wives furious."

Woman: ‘I can’t even imagine anybody -- it just makes me cry. It's terrible. You try to bury your son.'

Reporter: "A group of veterans, different backgrounds, all upset for the same reason.”

For NBC's Nightly News, Justice correspondent Pete Williams looks at motivation on both sides of the case.

"The protest organizer -- Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas -- said his demonstration and the resulting outrage got him exactly what he wanted--attention. ... Phelps has made such a habit of in-your-face protests that 40 states have actually passed laws to limit picketing at funerals. But Corporal Snyder's father Albert went a step further and sued Phelps for invading the privacy of the funeral. He says the messages were especially painful."

A blog for Boston's WAAF-Radio says when you really boil it down, the Supreme Court is essentially going to have to determine whose rights are more important—a mourning family’s right to privacy, or a group’s right to protest.

"... [D]on’t these families who are burying their dead have the religious right to a sacred, honorable funeral that is uninterrupted by a bunch of far right crazies waving signs demeaning their child?  Or is the right to be rude what we all have to stand for because of the Constitution?"

But a Huffington Post contributor argues--yes, the protesters are spreading a hateful message--but the First Amendment is too precious to make exceptions. He offers a legal alternative.

"… individual civil lawsuits against him seem to me to be an acceptable answer to his provocation. I would much rather the courts rule that people can be held accountable for certain types of speech … than I would having the courts attempt to ban such speech themselves. …. And if it does so, it is not just Phelps and his hatemongers who lose, it is all of us."

Writer: Newsy Staff

Producer: Brent Davidson