Thursday, August 09, 2012



New law counters Westboro protests

It remains to be seen what SCOTUS will make of it  -- if it ever gets that far again.  Is speech that no-one can hear really "Free"?  I can't see it

Congress took action where the Supreme Court didn’t to curb Westbooro Baptist Church’s followers from protesting the funerals of fallen troops and veterans.

President Obama signed into law Monday the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act that includes language aimed at protecting service members funerals. The church based in Kansas is best known for staging protests at service members funerals to protest the service of homosexuals in the military.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment protected Westboro’s right to protest the funerals. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that “as a nation we have chosen … to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Sen. Olympia Snow, R-Maine, introduced legislation three months following the Court’s ruling that gives the government the right to further protect the funerals.  The act argues that ensuring fallen troops have respectful burials is important to maintaining a strong military and protecting national security.

The new law extends bans on picketing funeral services of troops and veterans from 150 feet to 300 feet, and prohibits protests from being conducted up to two hours before and after a funeral. Previously the ban was for an hour before and after.

Violations are punishable by a fine and up to a year in jail.

“The graves of our veterans are hallowed ground, and obviously we all defend our Constitution and the First Amendment and free speech,” Obama said at the White House ceremony Monday. “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.”

Source




14 comments:

Anonymous said...

As much as I dislike the Westboro folks and their methods, I believe that upholding freedom of speech should prevail. A law like this, while noble on the surface, treads the slippery slope that could ultimately backfire and impede free speech from more mainstream groups.

Anonymous said...

This is dangerously close to unreasonable restrictions on "Free Speech." However, the protests have nothing to do with "petitioning the government" for redress of grievances, and the morale of the military is important. The real question the court will face is do the protests constitute a legitimate detriment to the morale of the military?

Bird of Paradise said...

Like all true leftists OBAMA opposes the U.S. CONSTITUTION why else is he trying to get the UN SMALL ARMS CONTROL TREATY passed so this pig can apply his hoofprint to it

Anonymous said...

"Freedom, like pure clean water, is essential to our way of life. Lest we forget what too much water can do..."

Anonymous said...

Don't people in the United States have a right to a peaceful funeral? Are their mourners' constitutional rights overridden by those of mean-spirited religious whackos who deliberately want to disrupt and exacerbate the grief of their fellow citizens?? Surely rights must be in balance or has the USA lost sight of that?

Use the Name, Luke said...

Only military funerals? That strikes me as unequal lawmaking. I think this law should protect all funerals and related memorial services. (Like the recent one for the Aurora victims, which Phelps' Phreaks promised to picket.)

There are already statutes in place against things like harassment, fighting words, disturbing the peace, trespassing, etc., even noise ordinances, all having to do with one person or group forcing themselves physically or audibly on another person or group. None of these are considered violations of the First Amendment. It seems to me that these "protests" (actually, trolling for lawsuits) by the Westboro "Baptist Church" (NOT!) falls into the same general category of harassment. So IMHO, laws against such specific harassment during a time of private grieving and emotional distress does not violate the First Amendment.

Go Away Bird said...

The WEST BORUGH BABTIST CHURCH aare just looking for attention IGNORE THEM AND THEYLL GO AWAY

Anonymous said...

2.18: the USA belives in freedom of religion over human dignity any time.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Ah, Anon. More assertions in the face of contrary evidence. The fun never ends.

Jub jub Bird said...

Human dignaty is just more foolish nonsesne

President Not Sure said...

Im still waiting for the day a family member looses it and beats the crap out of one of them. I dont think there is a jurisdiction in the country that could field enough people on a jury that would convict.

Anonymous said...

Why don't those crazy maniacs take out the WBC instead of shooting up theaters, political town halls, and houses of worship? No tears will be shed. Come on you NRA fans, get on the ball here.

Anonymous said...

You cannot legislate respect.
There is no 'right to a peaceful funeral', let along a constitutional right to such.
On the other hand, there is a right to express religious and political views.
Its not hard to see what the obvious result is re: WBC protests at funerals.

Flu-Bird said...

Yeah Pres not so sure its still a wonder no ones punched their lights out