Thread: Obama signs act banning protest at military funerals

Originally Posted by leftlegmoderate

It would have been better if he legislated the right to physically assault protesters at military funerals. I'm only half kidding.

I would agree, and I would be deadly serious.

But good news. WBC can take their hatred elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

Though I agree with the intent of this legislation, and I have no sympathy for the WBC, the legislation is patently unconstitutional.

I agree with your take.

I think the inclusion of a time period is what makes this fall within constitutional bounds.

They aren't removing the right to free speed they are establishing a period of grace to allow the families to mourn in peace.

Originally Posted by Osiris Faction

I think the inclusion of a time period is what makes this fall within constitutional bounds.

They aren't removing the right to free speed they are establishing a period of grace to allow the families to mourn in peace.

As I pointed out, some 9-11's are still whining. Some folks could claim that they need 50 years years to mourn. I would rule against the law.

Originally Posted by Osiris Faction

I think the inclusion of a time period is what makes this fall within constitutional bounds.

They aren't removing the right to free speed they are establishing a period of grace to allow the families to mourn in peace.

Under what bright line can you limit the period in which free speech and peaceful assembly can occur? The point is that you can't because to do so limits free speech.

And why is this legislation specific for military funerals and not all funerals?

As I've said previously, I have absolutely no respect for the WBC but this bit of legislation is clearly unconstitutional and, perhaps worse, is an obvious attempt by Obama to pander to the military during an election year.

Originally Posted by The Wyrd of Gawd

As I pointed out, some 9-11's are still whining. Some folks could claim that they need 50 years years to mourn. I would rule against the law.

I understand, however...we aren't talking about 9/11. We are talking about the WBC actively picketing military funerals. The families have been given two hours BEFORE and two hours AFTER. Not ten years.

I think that time frame is acceptable.

[QUOTE=Jason Bourne;1061561614]

Originally Posted by Osiris Faction

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...ne-families-ac[/ord]

Though I agree with the intent of this legislation, and I have no sympathy for the WBC, the legislation is patently unconstitutional.

As much as I completely HATE and despise the WBC,im going to have to agree with you also on this.
I hate what they stand for and it disgusts me when they protest at soldiers funerals,anyones funerals for that matter .
BUT
personal feelings aside,it does infringe the right to free speech and protest.
I feel the same about OWS .I dont agree with them,but they do have the right to protest.
And it doesnt matter if the period is for 2 hours,or a minute.Its unconstitutional.
When Government starts passing legislation to silence the protest of one group ,how long until they start trying to silence EVERYONE.
Again,let me clarify.
I hate the WBC with pure passion,but as much as I hate it,its their right to protest.

[QUOTE=Jason Bourne;1061561621]

Originally Posted by Osiris Faction

Nevertheless, you cannot legislate away the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech.

Fine line - all this has actually done is stop someone doing something at a point in time for a finite period of time and a specified place. Is this any different from "public nuisance" laws that stop people having a raving party all night??

heres the second part of the bill,it read:

"the second part of this bill that I want to highlight -- prohibit protesting within 300 feet of military funerals during the two hours before and two hours after a service. I supported this step as a senator. I am very pleased to be signing this bill into law. The graves of our veterans are hallowed ground. And obviously we all defend our Constitution and the First Amendment and free speech, but we also believe that when men and women die in the service of their country and are laid to rest, it should be done with the utmost honor and respect. "

ok,but:
The same kind of law passed in Missouri in 2006 was tossed out by a judge ,and ruled unconstitutional:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...onstitutional/




JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A federal judge Monday ruled that Missouri laws restricting protests near funerals are unconstitutional.

Missouri legislators passed two laws in 2006 in response to protests at servicemembers' funerals by members of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The church contends the deaths are God's punishment for the U.S. tolerating homosexuality.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan ruled the laws violate the right of free speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The primary state law had barred protests near any funeral, procession or memorial service from an hour before until an hour after the service. The secondary measure specifically stated protesters must stay back at least 300 feet. Both provisions levied the same penalty: up to six months in jail and a $500 fine for a first offense and up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for repeat offenders.

Gaitan concluded Missouri officials did not demonstrate the protest restrictions served a significant government interest nor that they had been narrowly tailored to prevent the harm of interruptions of funeral services. The judge wrote he was sympathetic to the argument people attending a funeral deserve some protection but noted a federal appeals court already had previously rejected that argument.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Westboro church member Shirley Phelps-Roper. Last year, Missouri officials were barred from enforcing the protest restrictions while the lawsuit was pending. Missouri Attorney General Koster appealed that decision but the U.S. Supreme Court refused without comment to consider the case.

Koster also plans to appeal Gaitan's latest ruling, said spokeswoman Nanci Gonder.

Gonder said Gaitan's hands were tied by a federal appeals court ruling that there was no compelling government interest in protecting people from unwanted speech outside their homes. She said the attorney general's office would ask the appeals court to "reconsider the abhorrent acts" church members "routinely inflict upon our servicemen and women."

ACLU attorney Tony Rothert said Monday that Missouri's restrictions created too large a zone in public areas where speech was restricted and made even non-disruptive speech illegal.

"Just not liking speech isn't enough reason," Rothert said.

Rothert added that the ban was aimed at the Kansas church but could have affected others. For example, he said it could have made it illegal to picket anywhere a funeral procession happened to drive past.

Numerous states have passed laws restricting protests at funerals; Phelps-Roper also challenged a similar law in Ohio. Missouri's law was sponsored by two St. Joseph lawmakers after Westboro members protested outside the 2005 funeral of a soldier from their legislative districts. State lawmakers said they approved two laws so there was a fallback in case one was challenged in court.

Missouri's ban was named after Edward Lee Myers, whose funeral was protested after he was killed in Iraq. Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields, who sponsored one of the funeral protest laws, said in a statement that the protest infringed on the rights of Myers' family and friends.

"Those laid to rest will no longer have the right to be mourned and remembered in an environment of peace, respect and compassion," said Shields, R-St. Joseph. "This ruling is a tragedy to those who die in service while protecting the rights we enjoy here at home."

According to court documents, members of the Kansas church say they have held more than 42,000 pickets, including more than 500 at funerals.

The U.S. Supreme Court this fall was to consider an appeal by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq to reinstate a $5 million verdict against protesters from the church who picketed outside his son's funeral in Maryland. A Baltimore jury awarded damages for emotional distress and invasion of privacy but a federal appeals court threw out the verdict.

[QUOTE=Bowerbird;1061561806]

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

Fine line - all this has actually done is stop someone doing something at a point in time for a finite period of time and a specified place. Is this any different from "public nuisance" laws that stop people having a raving party all night??

Freedom of speech and peaceful assembly aren't nuisances under the Constitution. They're rights protected by the Constitution. A "rave" is a public nuisance if it annoys or is likely to cause a public disturbance.