WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide the outer limits of free-speech protection for protests and to rule on whether a dead soldier's family can sue fringe religious protesters who picketed near their son's funeral, carrying signs that read: "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Like the famous case of the American Nazis who marched in Skokie, Ill., the new case of anti-gay picketing at military funerals tests whether the most hateful protests must be tolerated under the First Amendment, even if they inflict emotional harm. In this instance, the victims were the family of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in combat in Iraq on March 3, 2006.

When his family announced that his funeral would be held in Westminster, Md., a Kansas preacher decided to travel there with a few followers to protest. In recent years, the Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, has been protesting at military funerals around the nation because he believes that the United States is too tolerant of homosexuality. Though kept distant from St. Johns Catholic Church and the cemetery, Mr. Phelps and his followers carried signs that read "God Hates the USA," "Fag troops" and "Pope in hell."

There was no suggestion that Cpl. Snyder was gay or that the protests even involved him directly. But after returning to Kansas, Mr. Phelps said on his website that Albert Snyder, the soldier's father, had "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil."

Mr. Snyder sued Mr. Phelps for invading his privacy and for an intentional infliction of emotional distress. A Maryland jury rejected Mr. Phelps' defense based on free speech and awarded Mr. Snyder $10.9 million in damages. But a judge reduced the amount to $5 million.

Last September, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond threw out verdict, citing the First Amendment.

The father appealed to the Supreme Court, noting that a family at a funeral is a "captive audience" and cannot simply turn away from a hateful protest.

The high court said it would hear the case and consider reinstating the jury verdict, one of two privacy cases the court voted to take up in the fall.

The second involves scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, Calif.. They raised privacy objections when they were told to answer personal questions about drug use as part of a background check.

Washington correspondent Daniel Malloy writes the "Pittsburgh On The Potomac" blog exclusively at PG+, a members-only web site of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.