I disagree with your first entry: I think that WBC's protesting of funerals, horrible though it is, is absolutely protected free speech. It fails a clear and present danger test (certainly doesn't look like shouting fire in a crowded theatre). I think part of the greatness of the 1st Amendment is that even if just about everyone thinks you have no right to say something, it's still legal. We don't have the 1st Amendment for easy stuff, we have it for the hard stuff, like this. Alito's defense seemed to amount to "tasteless=illegal."

In any case, why do you think it should have been ruled the other way?