Arizona passes bill making it illegal to protest near a funeral.

http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/15795369/arizona-passes-bill-making-it-illegal-to-protest-near-a-funeral



Part of me applauds this and says it's time to stand up to the Westboro Baptist Church and part of me says it's a slippery slope to limiting our rights of assembly. :shrug:

through reason. . .someone better do it for us. . .or the consequences can be dear!

funerals.

I would never protest at a funeral, even Evil Dick's.

and WBC can't get this case to court before they bury Christina Greene.

that protesters will have to keep their distance 1 hour before and 1 hour after the funeral. I think that the distance is 100 yards.

I believe they've been hoping for something like this to use as the basis of a civil suit. They've been hoping for an excuse to sue hell out of some municipality or state for denying them the civil right to protest, and it looks like Arizona is delivering an opportunity on a silver platter. Lawmakers don't need to be lawyers, but they need a basic understanding that their decisions can open a legal can of worms.

and elevate the 2nd Amendment? I find it beyond ironic that Arizona, a state with some of the most liberal gun laws, decides to limit free speech. I can't go along with this.

I think Fred Phelps and his family cult members are total pigs and should be publicly ridiculed often and counter-protested and hounded out of town by the citizenry. But for the Arizona legislature to curtail their 1st Amendment rights and by doing so, elevate the 2nd Amendment with their very liberal gun laws, is just about the worst thing they could do. And certainly shows an incredible ignorance of our laws.

I understand why they want to - these people are disgusting - but the hypocrisy blows my mind.

And you know damn well that Phelps & his slime will do just that. They LIVE for challenges just like this. AND, they'll expect compensation.

It's what they do.

limiting their access to the funeral area itself ... by 100 yds ... it might stand up ...

To legislate away the rights of an odious minority also legislates away the rights of the well-mannered majority. The problem is the slippery slope which legislation like this introduces to our Constitutional rights. Under Bush we threw fit after fit (rightly, IMO) about the abrogation of our First Amendment rights involving protesting of Bush and Cheney speaking. These sorts of laws are convenient. But their convenience comes at a high cost down the road where even worse individuals than the Westboro Baptist Church will use the precedents set now and in the future to further abrogate our rights.

And, when looking back at that (dimmer) point in the future and surveying the road we took to get to that darker place, we very well may see the road lined with the brightest, sparkling intentions.

PB

I'm all for freedom of speech, but funerals are non-political, semi-private gatherings, and it seems to me that what Fred Phelps and his group does is sheer harassment. He's not even protesting the people at the funeral, just a vague concept, it's ridiculous. Maybe this won't stand, but I'm so glad those monsters are denied, at least this time.

It's about time someone did.

I don't think it will stand, but for now, it might keep these freaks away.

I'm not crazy about laws like these even though the message is a vile one.

"Protests" at funerals are harassment IMO, they are aimed at non-officials primarily, in a very difficult time. Individual families don't deserve to be dragged through hell by people simply wanting to make someone angry enough to hit them, then sue. They should be spared grifters, and this is what the Westboro bunch is, they have NOTHING in common with people who actually "protest" some official act, person, or idea; even teabaggers. To me this law is like a "no solicitors please sign". The slippery slope is what we are sliding down right now, with all kinds of harassment being called protest and calls for treason and murder over the airwaves being referred to as simply "freedom of speech".

make the distinction. I think it's about time. Good post, get the red out

I think our country is so polarized that it is difficult for the law to define anything. Everything is about which "side" gets the upper hand on every issue. That's just my very amateur opinion anyway.