Hello...
My flip answer to yell "shut up!" in reply to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater was meant to point out to a learned commenter (also a Ph.D. here in Springfield) that this hypothetical is an old and silly dodge and he ought to know it. It's not worth wasting time or breath discussing.
The MO law is a problem because the language is vague and the restrictions are broad--so broad that counter-protesting (e.g. the bikers who have offered protection from Phelps) would be outlawed. Further, any demonstration is outlawed--including a sympathetic demonstration. The MO law makes no distinctions: "It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in picketing or other protest activities in front of or about any church, cemetery, or funeral establishment as defined ..." And the law defines "funeral" as including everything from the funeral home to the cemetery, including the procession. Technically speaking, if a funeral passes by a labor strike, the strikers are breaking this law. Obviously, no one intends it to be used that way. But I prefer not to trust government that much. If someone can use a law a particular way, chances are they will try.
It is true that Missouri has a defined limit zone on campaigning or protesting at polling places. I think one of the commenters on this site said it was 25 feet. I haven't checked that recently, but I accept his/her characterization of it. I am against that law, too.
It may be possible to craft a law to protect grieving families and pass Constitutional challenge. I'm not qualified to say what that would be. I suspect that the idea that's been discussed on my blog recently (i.e. protecting the grave service as speech and/or religious expression) could be a fruitful area of exploration. But that requires hard work and thought--two things the MO legislature failed to apply to the current law. This idea, by the way, creates a classic dilemma between two rights of speech or between speech and religion, thus requiring a compromise of some kind.
Finally, I describe myself as a First Amendment "absolutist." That's a problematic term, obviously. What I mean by it is this: In any given case, I will argue for an absolute right to free speech first and continue to do so until such point that my position is no longer defensible. Like Jefferson, think any tyranny over the mind of man is intolerable.
What fascinates me about this episode is how much of a role emotion plays in it. I've been asked many times now, including in subsequent interviews, how I would feel if it were my family member, or if I have any understanding of the feelings of the families? If it were my family member, I'd be blind with rage. But: The Constitution of the United States of America and our freedoms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are more important than the life of any particular soldier or the feelings of a grieving family.
Sadly, the tests of our principles regarding the Bill of Rights all too often come in vile form.
--A. Cline
I am ashamed to admit that I did not read the law in question, and only adressed the idea of the 500 ft. limit to a protest. I have to agree with you that with the definitions provided, the law is overly broad.
I also agree that emotion is clouding sound thinking on the subject. I can sympathize with the emotion, of course, but still expect sober minds to prevail.
I have to say I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. And FWIW, I tried to register so that I could post to your blog but cannot seem to get the registration finalized. As of this afternoon I still had not received the email confirmation. At any rate, thank you for joining the discussion.
I am curious to know why you disagree with the electioneering laws - and I think I was the one who brought it us, and yes, it is 25 feet -- I checked. To me it seems common sense and honestly, we shouldn't need a law in either case, but there it is. You can trust people to behave decently.
Back to the discussion - I don't see how this law contradicts the right of free speech, because, as I mentioned, the text of the First Ammendment prohibits CONGRESS (i.e. the Federal Government) from passing a law that hinders free speech. In other words, the guarantee is given that the federal government not be allowed to silence those who disagree with it. This has, in my opnion, no bearing on that a state may or may not do. And to be honest, I have not read the Missouri constitution (or whatever it would be called) and I have no idea if there are any statutes on the State level that speak to this. So I still do not see how this law can be called unconstitutional.
I humbly disagree.
I do not have to put up with this crap under the guise of free speech.
I also have a right to own property, and so do others. When I'm at a cemetery, I've rented it if they've accepted my cash, and I can keep others out. It is no longer a "public" area.
In fact, many cemeteries are privately owned in the first place. Even when they're not, once they've accepted my cash for a given event, then I get control.
Happens all the time in public parks. If you rent the big pavillion for a family reunion, your contract enables you to kick squatters out.
The Constitution of the United States of America and our freedoms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are more important than the life of any particular soldier or the feelings of a grieving family.