Posted on 05/02/2006 2:47:25 AM PDT by jamesm51
One of the first state laws to limit Fred Phelps-style funeral protests has sparked a federal lawsuit charging that it infringes on First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit, filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union, says Kentucky's limits on funeral demonstrations are unconstitutional and should be struck down.
The Kentucky law says protesters within 300 feet of funeral services would be guilty of first-degree disorderly conduct, punishable by up to a year in jail. It also prevents protesters from using bullhorns to try to disrupt services and bans any images that could be seen by people at the service.
The lawsuit probably won't affect the bill Kansas lawmakers are working on, University of Kansas constitutional law professor Stephen McAllister said. But any bill that limits how people express themselves in public is likely to attract lawsuits, including the Kansas bill, he added.
Kansas lawmakers want to move forward anyway, McAllister said.
"My sense is they're pretty politically determined in Topeka to pass something and I think they're going to," he said.
A House-Senate subcommittee last week agreed on banning any disruptive protests within 500 feet of a funeral. The bill will have to pass the House and Senate before it could go to the governor.
McAllister said a key point of the bill will be the definition of "disruption." If it entails making loud noises that interfere with the funeral services, it would likely be upheld in court, he said.
"But if it's defined as ugly signs that say mean, offensive things to those attending... then you're defining disruptive as speech as opposed to conduct," he said.
McAllister said it's nearly impossible to keep protesters from peaceful demonstrations. The best a state can do is ban disruptive picketing, he said.
"Sometimes you just have to ignore people," he said. "And this is an extremely hard instance."
The lawsuit challenging the Kentucky law puts the ACLU, which routinely handles discrimination cases involving gays and lesbians, on the same side as Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, which is known for its anti-gay protests.
The church members claim the soldiers' deaths are a sign of God punishing America for tolerating homosexuality.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Bart McQueary, a Mercer County man who has protested alongside the church members on three occasions. McQueary had no listed telephone number and couldn't be reached for comment.
U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell has been assigned to hear the case. The ACLU already has asked her to grant a preliminary injunction that would allow funeral protests to continue.
"Mr. McQueary clearly has the right to express his message in a nondisruptive manner, even if others disagree with him," said Lili Lutgens, an attorney for the ACLU in Louisville.
Lutgens said the law is so broad that people could unknowingly violate it by whistling as they walk down a sidewalk, or by stopping to chat on a public sidewalk near a funeral home. She said the law also could prevent pro-military groups from standing outside memorial services to counter the demonstrators.
Lutgens said whether Kansas or other states would be drawn into the suit depends on how similar their laws are.
"It becomes problematic when they seek to regulate far beyond that, and that's what we have in Kentucky," she said.
Contributing: Associated Press
KENTUCKY'S LAW
Key elements of Kentucky's law protecting funerals, memorial services and burials:
• Prohibits picketing within 300 feet of the service
• Makes it illegal to display images observable to participants without authorization from family
• Prohibits singing, chanting, shouting, yelling and using a bullhorn without permission of the family
KANSAS' PROPOSED LAW
Key elements of Kansas' proposed law, which is still being negotiated by lawmakers:
• Prohibits protests within 500 feet of a funeral of a U.S. soldier killed in combat
• Prohibits use of noise to disrupt a service
FTACLU!!
What kind of sick, perveted, pathetic excuse for human excrement goes out to protest at a funeral?? For God's sake, let the dead rest in peace, they've served their time here.
ACLU is being stupid here.
Of course a family has every right to expect a private funeral.
Free speech does not extend to the protest of someone they don't know for reasons that don't pertain to the deceased, to satisfy a fringe nutter.
ping
"Lutgens said the law is so broad that people could unknowingly violate it by whistling as they walk down a sidewalk"
_________________
Oh come *on*
"She said the law also could prevent pro-military groups from standing outside memorial services to counter the demonstrators"
_______________
Speaking as a pro-military guy, I have absolutely no probl maintaining a respectful distance from the grieving families. It's about making sure the Phelpsfreaks do the same, you liberal goofballs.
On the flip side, the ACLU vigorously defends laws that prohibit abortion protestors from being anywhere close to aborion clinics.
FUBAR.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, February 10, 1999
ACLU Backs Free Speech for All — Except Pro-lifers
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
What Voltaire said more than 200 years ago could easily serve as the motto of the American Civil Liberties Union. The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.
But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU's press release: "We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion."
Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.
The only funerals that should be disrupted by protest are ones for serial killers and child molesters.
what is it going to take to get the congress to defund the aclu?
It's okay to drag the 1st Amendent into it. The family has a right to exercise their freedom of religion by attending a funeral. Disrupting a funeral is a disruption of that right.
There has been some speculation about Fred Phelps being a secret liberal operative to advance the homosexual agenda by making him the public face of opposition to it.
The ACLU's rush to his defence lends credence to the speculation.
How about the Texas version:
"Shooting a protestor at a funeral is a Class C Misdemeaner, punishment not to exceed $5 in fines."
With all of the problems the GOP has, things can look pretty dark. We hear about the rat retaking Congress and the Senate. Then we take a deep breath and look around,
"Ah! There it is! There's the rat showing through. There's the real rat party that people are repulsed by." Whether it is the rat in congress demanding we immediately surrender in Iraq or some scumbag from the aclu fighting to make a grieving family's life just a little more miserable, the real rat shows himself and our fortunes don't look so bleak anymore.
Wrong.
At a minimum, Phelps' conduct is a disturbance of the peace (as are almost all "demonstrations" which do not represent peaceful assembly FOR THE PURPOSE of petitioning the government for redress of grievances).
At the most, Phelps' activity is an incitement to riot.
Under any reasonable interpretation of the common law, everything he does is already illegal, and he should have been arrested long ago.
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.