Posted on 08/22/2008 5:12:26 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
Today's Phelps-Roper v. Strickland upholds a ban on "'picketing' or 'other protest activities,' within 300 feet of the funeral or burial service, from one hour before until one hour after the funeral or burial service." ("Other protest activities" is defined as "any action that is disruptive or undertaken to disrupt or disturb a funeral or burial service or a funeral procession.")
The court concludes that the ban is content-neutral, serves the important government interest in "protect[ing] the citizens of Ohio from disruption during the events associated with a funeral or burial service," including disruption in the sense of "unwanted communication that implicates ... privacy interests" of a "captive audience." And:
Individuals mourning the loss of a loved one share a privacy right similar to individuals in their homes or individuals entering a medical facility. Indeed, the Supreme Court has already recognized the privacy right of individuals to control the body and death images of deceased family members sufficient to prevent their disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. See Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004). In Favish, the Supreme Court held that an individual’s request for death scene photographs of a public official were protected from disclosure under Exemption 7(C) of the Act “when the family [of the decedent] objects to the release of photographs showing the condition of the body at the scene of death.” Id. at 160. The Court based its holding on cultural traditions and common law protections....
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
Good news!
PGR Ping.
Now, if he truly had the courage of his convictions, he would protest anyway. ;-)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The First Amendment should protect all forms of protest no matter how offensive.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Of course, the First Amendment does not protect one on private property but does if a person is on a public street just outside of a cemetery or abortion clinic.
Civilization would cease to function.
The court got the decision right but the reasoning wrong.
The court should have wrote: People have the right to assemble and associate freely without being disturbed by assholes.
If I can see this so should a judge.
“The First Amendment should protect all forms of protest no matter how offensive.”
Sorry, uncle. The people’s right to assemble is as important as the right to free speech. The people assembling on a set piece of property had the prior and superior claim in the 1st amendment. If not, Nazis could goosestep into synagogues and scream seig heil and claim 1st amendment rights. Don’t work that way.
No, Nazis could not goosestep their way into a synagogue since the First Amendment does not protect one's speech on someone else's private property.
However, Nazis could if they wished stand on the street outside a synagogue and yell seig heil all day long.
And a Pro Life Group can stand outside of a pro abortion church and protest all day long as long as they protest group did not enter onto private property.
The Westboro inbreeds are a blight on humanity.
The First Amendment should protect all forms of protest no matter how offensive
The inbreed morons of WestBoro are not prevented from protesting our exercising their Firts Admendment rights. What they are not allowed to do is disrupt, interfere with, our destroy other people lives, for their own perverse pleasure.
You have a right to speak freely but you have no right to enter my house to do so.
You can not yell fire in a theather. There are certain words that if you use them and strike certain human beings it will add years to your sentence.
What are you talking about?
The First Amendment should protect all forms of protest no matter how offensive.
You have the right to speak, and people have the right to listen - but people also have rights not to listen to your message. For example, you have a right to post pretty much anything you want on the internet, and yet to post on this site your posting is subject to the possible censorship of the moderators. If the moderator takes down your posting, your recourse is to form your own web site - but then, you have the problem of attracting an audience which posting on FR solves. The free speech on FR is not yours or mine, ultimately it is that of Jim Robinson - and his "speech" is to allow your post and mine to stand on FR - or not.The court properly held in this case that Westboro "Baptist Church" was exploiting the need of people to be at the funeral of a relative, friend or relative of a friend to force them to pay attention to their message. And they held that that was not in principle dissimilar to intruding into your home and yelling at you.
And they are correct in principle to accept reasonable restriction of time and place. For example: suppose that you reserve a place in a public park for a meeting to listen to a Republican speaker. I have a right to go to that place in a public park. Do I have a right to go to that meeting and verbally disrupt the speech which the rest of the attendees went to hear? I say, not at all - the attendees have the right to hear the scheduled speech and I have no right to interfere with their hearing it. To hold otherwise would be to allow the government to disrupt opposition meetings with brown shirts.
So I disagree with you inasmuch as you imply that events such as funerals and political rallies may be disrupted at will. There is such a thing as disrupting the peace, and preventing people from sleeping with your cacaphony of noise at 3 AM is and must be illegal - and disrupting a funeral is properly illegal also.
In the case of Westboro, there can't actually be any question about actually convincing anyone with their "speech" - it is simply being engaged in in order to offend and provoke. The state has an interest in preventing that sort of behavior before someone takes the bait and commits a felony in response to the provocation. Let Mr. Phelps work to communicate his message to the survivors of military casualties - if his message is so al-fired important let him pony up money and advertise in the paper in that community. Or let him find those survivors and try to get them to listen to his POV. Phelps is exploiting people at their most vulnerable, and he does not have a natural right to do so.
Extremely well said!
Whether a military family or any family, they have the right to have the service in peace, quiet and reverance and the court recognized that.
I agree. It should support the pummeling of Phelps and his gang in protest of their absurd behavior.
D.C. Chapter Master Ping List
GREAT NEWS - this one-branch family tree is finally having the tables turned on them.
Thank You Patriot Guard Riders and FReepers.
Thank God. If one one my sons were to die (G_d forbid), and those jerks showed up to protest, I would be posting this from prison.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.