The freedom to speak out on public issues is the foundation of freedom in this country.

The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday issued a legally correct and completely unsurprising ruling in defense of free speech that was disappointing in only one respect.

The court's decision should have been unanimous. Instead, the vote was 8-1 in defense of despicable, but constitutionally permissible, speech.

Protecting unpopular speech is the whole idea behind the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. People who express popular ideas don't need protection. Those who depart from majority positions often do.

That was the case involving the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church's decision to picket at the funeral of soldiers who died in the service of their country.

The church isn't much of a church in terms of membership. Its founder – the Rev. Fred Phelps – appears to be obsessed with homosexuality and what he perceives as its threat to the country. Toward that end, Phelps conducted a protest near the 2006 Maryland funeral of U.S. Marine Cpl. Matthew Snyder. Members of his group carried signs that read "God hates fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

Phelps apparently hoped engaging in such cruel and tasteless behavior would draw attention, and it did.

The protests also drew a lawsuit from the Marine's father, who was understandably enraged over what happened and not inclined to be persuaded about the virtues of the First Amendment.

A jury, obviously incensed by what happened, awarded the Snyder family $10 million. That sum was cut in half by the trial judge, who should have had the good sense to throw the case out altogether. Instead, a federal appeals court reversed the jury verdict. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the appellate court ruling in a crystal clear fashion.

Writing for the court's majority, Chief Justice John Roberts characterized Rev. Phelp's message as "certainly hurtful" and its contribution to public discourse as "negligible." But he said government cannot react to the personal pain of the Snyder family by "punishing the speaker."

"As a nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," Roberts wrote.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito contended that "free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."

Unfortunately, Alito justified his decision on the same false analogy as do many, particularly those in the higher education community, who want to silence speech they don't like. He characterized the speech in this case as an "assault." Speech is speech, and assault is conduct. To undercut speech, foes often mischaracterize it as conduct.

Phelps has vowed to return to his protests. He should be ignored. People like him thrive on the attention they receive, and he got plenty in this case. Phelps deserves no more, but he does – in this country – have the right to speak.