* * * *
Notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words being challenged in these proceedings, we are
constrained
to conclude that the DefendantsÂ’ signs and Epic are
constitutionally protected. To paraphrase our distinguished
colleague Judge Hall,
judges defending the Constitution
"must sometimes share [their] foxhole with scoundrels of
every sort, but to abandon the post because of the poor company is to sell freedom cheaply. It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in
controversies involving not very nice people."
Kopf v. Skyrm,
[page 32]
993 F.2d 374, 380 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Nonetheless, the various states and localities, as well as
grieving families, may yet protect the sanctity of solemn occasions
such as funerals and memorials. Indeed, governmental
bodies are entitled to place reasonable and content-neutral
time, place, and manner restrictions on activities that are otherwise
constitutionally protected. Some "breathing space" for
contentious speech is essential, however, under the Free
Speech Clause. See
New York Times, 376 U.S. at 272. As the
Court long ago emphasized:
To persuade others to his own point of view, the
pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration,
to vilification of men who have been, or are,
prominent in church or state, and even to false statement.
But the people of this nation have ordained in
the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of
excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long
view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct
on the part of citizens of a democracy.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 (1940). Because
the judgment attaches tort liability to constitutionally protected
speech, the district court erred in declining to award
judgment as a matter of law.
IV.
Pursuant to the foregoing, the judgment of the district court
is reversed * * * *
