I did not find the majority to be at all compelling or convincing; especially having read the cases they were citing.
"And even if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and
“God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages
related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically,
that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and
dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to
broader public issues."
They published that Snyder 'died in shame' and is 'burning in hell' before driving over and have a multitude of signs that would indicate to any passerby, who didn't know about the protesting nuts, defamatory statements about the dead.
The ruling hinged on an argument not being made as making it would have been inappropriate. The typical wrong footed SCOTUS decision where after the base case an argument is raised on appeal, that issue is addressed during the appeal, repeat, and then the Supreme Court gives a troll smile and say that the issue turned on a matter well proven at the case in trial, but not discussed at the appellate level.
Their position rests on 'what if the signs instead said: Snyder, great guy, god bless em' no case, content is untouchable.
What I got from the ruling is yet another judicial choice to go with a bright line rule wholly appealing to academics and lawyers, inexplicable to anyone with any degree of common sense.
Their avoidance of really addressing the limits of time, place and manner, stating the state had no bar on funeral protests at the time, does nothing but avoid tackling difficult issues.
High mindedness is used as a cover for intellectual cowardice.