I have no right to say that my editor, Philip Case, has sex with goats.

First, his sexual preference has no substantial political, social or community concern. Second, if this was true, it would not affect the operation or functioning of the Northern Star.

I can, however, stand in front of the Campus Life Building and hold a sign that says, “God hates goat humpers.”

What separates the two types of speech are their content, form and context. In Snyder v. Phelps, also known as the Snyder v. Westboro Baptist Church, the primary issue at hand was the context in which Westboro Baptist members protested various public concerns.

The content and form of the speech being delivered by Westboro members is not unusual. If I had a dime for every hyperbolic sign I have seen, then I would have at least $5. Saying “God hates X” or “bad things happen cause of Y” are the most basic expressions of belief.

It is reasonable that some of these basic expressions make you cringe; yet, it is unreasonable to pursue their extinction. Stop and ask yourself, “What promotes discussion?” Often, these primal grunts are the muses of intelligent debate.

If the voices of dissent are correct, society benefits by being able to implement them into the public consciousness. If they are wrong, society still benefits from a debate that reaffirms the values they currently believe to be true. Either way, these benefits are deprived if the voices are silenced altogether.

Granted, protesting a funeral of a service member is in very poor taste, but such tactlessness led the state of Maryland to regulate the time, place and manner of protests taking place near funerals.

Furthermore, if individuals on public property were subject to private restrictions, the mantle given to the power of speech and assembly would crumble.

My hypothesized slippery slope if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Snyder would be one leading to other challenges to the First Amendment.

Would Hippie Hank be allowed to hold up the sign “Monopolies enslave the human race” in front of a Walmart because Walmart employees thought the sign to be distressing? Would Factory Frank be able to strike in front of his employer drawing public attention to a private negotiation? Computer says no.

I will not deny that I have wished some people would shut up, but that will never happen. Even if people were taken off the street or television, they would go behind doors or online.

In addition to the futility in restricting speech, I prefer the ability to vent rather than keeping it all in.

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps for it reaffirms the great ideals of this nation. To exchange the freedom of expression for proper convention extinguishes the torch that is seen throughout the world.

In Libya, people are paying with their lives for voicing concern with social issues. In Egypt, people cleared their throats and spat out oppression by assembling and speaking freely.

There is no doubt that speech is powerful. And it is true that with great power comes great responsibility.

That responsibility, however, is given to the people.