Arizona Legislature passes bill meant to stop church from protesting at funerals.

[Serious Mozzarella]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html?hpt=T2

Tucson, Arizona (CNN) -- The Arizona legislature is expected to pass legislation Tuesday targeting a Kansas church whose members have announced they plan to picket the funerals of the victims of Saturday's shootings in Tucson.

The proposed legislation would make it a misdemeanor to protest within 300 feet of a funeral from one hour before until one hour after a funeral, a spokesman for the state House said.

The action, according to House spokesman Daniel Scarpinato, is in direct response to the Westboro Baptist Church's announcement that it will picket the funeral of Christina Green, the 9-year-old who was among six people killed during Saturday's attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona.

I hate the WBC as much as the next guy, but don't you think this is setting a dangerous precedent where lawmakers can just decide to censor speech they don't like? This is guaranteed to be challenged, either by the church themselves, or the Supreme Court.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

I will defend their right to protest. BUT, they should have some decency. They are not a church. They're a cult with insane views on well pretty much everything, Arizona did the right thing here. If this does go to court it's going to be thrown out. Arizona did not prevent them from protesting. All they did was to add the area in which they are allowed to protest. Towns do this all the time and they're not taken to court.

 

[Lee]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Which they are not.

 

[Lee]

Eh they're making a law restricting freedom of speech.

 

[Барбоса]

I fully expect the Supreme Court to overturn what is essentially contrary to the US Constitution.

WBC, fundmentalist clerics etc. highlight the problem of viewing freedom of speech as a right rather than a privilege. Once someone takes it too far, there is nothing really that can be done about it.

 

[JGlass]

I don't know how I feel about this. The people of the WBC are one of the worst types of people there are in my eyes, people who take religion and turn it into hate which they use as a tool to scare people into submission. The fact they protest funerals for soldiers sickens me greatly, as these are soldiers that die for the country that gives them the WBC the right to protest their funerals. Kind of ironic, no?

That said, the idea of the government being able to censor speech is certainly a scary thing. While they are only censoring it in one very specific way right now, what's to say they won't make a law censoring it another specific way, and then another, and then there's no end to what types of laws they can pass.

 

[Барбоса]

I don't buy the whole supposed problem of setting a precedent. Do people really think, with all the lessons of first half of the 20th century, that this censoring of a specific horrible exploitation of the freedom of speech will lead to the US government significantly reducing the personal freedoms of the ordinary citizen? Scare-mongering if you ask me.

The way the British government has dealt with some radical Islamic clerics should be a good example for the US (although obviously deportation is not an option for citizens).

 

[Razor]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While Arizona is not Congress, and therefore will try to argue it that way...

Leave it to Arizona to try and trample some more of the Constitution. I'm sure there is a majority feeling in the US that sure, this law should be there.

However, it's a blatant law written specifically to trample a specific group's rights to peaceful assembly, protest, and free speech. I might not like what they have to say at all, and fundamentally disagree with everything they say ever, but they have the right to piss me off every time they open their mouths. They protested a funeral for a fallen soldier just a few hours from my hometown. I didn't want them there, but there's no way for me to legally stop them.

This is why we have the Judicial Branch. They law may very well pass, but the Judicial will rule this unconstitutional the minute someone looks at them and says "Really?"

 

[Tastycles]

Without wanting to sound Daily Mail, it's too easy to hide behind freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not take precedent over other laws - e.g. I can't wander into Area 51 with a John Cena Sucks placard and say it's ok because America has freedom of speech. They should be allowed to say God hates **** and that's why he's killing 9 year old girls, after all, who wouldn't want to worship a child murderer, but there's no reason not to also make a law that states the land around a funeral is private for the duration of the funeral, in the same way that special status is afforded to places as a matter of security.

Either that, or pass a law that states that using a taser on people picketing funerals is legal.

 

[Slyfox696]

However, it's a blatant law written specifically to trample a specific group's rights to peaceful assembly, protest, and free speech.

But it's not a peaceful assembly, it's exactly the opposite. Furthermore, the concept of Freedom of Speech already has many legally binding instances when the speech of a person can be repressed.

The law, as it's written in the opening post, is not prohibiting the WBC from saying what they want to say, but they are saying where they are not allowed to say it, in the interest of protecting the rights of families to have a peaceful funeral for their loved ones.


I'm sure it will be challenged, but I'd be surprised if it gets overturned.

 

[Dave]

This is a good thing. No one is taking away their freedom of speech. Hell, they can go 300 feet down the road and say whatever they damn well please. All this is, is a way of making sure that the people who have died with no connection to this "church" have the right to be buried and remembered in peace.

Say whatever you like about the Congress or their freedom of speech but until they are picketing at your nine year old daughters funeral, you really don't know what you would feel.