I will go toe to toe with anybody in my loathing of the Fred Phelps clan and the Westboro Baptist Church. And from an emotional standpoint, I sympathized deeply with anyone whose graveside grief has been disturbed by their repulsive protests.
But that sympathy doesn't, IMO, warrant creating yet another exception to First Amendment rights, or ruling that such an exception "serves a significant government interest". I have to side with the ACLU on this one.
Embedded Link
Full 8th Circuit: Mo. town can limit funeral protests | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition
Manchester’s ordinance ‘survives First Amendment scrutiny because it serves a significant government interest,’ judge writes for court.
Google+: View post on Google+
I think Westboro has been a tremendous help to the cause of Irreligion.
Yup.
Generally I'm the first to jump in and defend the First Amendment. In this case, I don't believe the law infringes it though. The reason has nothing to do with that line about "significant government interest," which in this case should actually generate an exactly opposite ruling.
Rather, they're asking the wrong question. What is being questioned is their right to assemble (not to speak). And in this case, there is a good argument that their assembly is not peaceful. It is designed to harm others psychologically, to intensify grief and cause shame, and otherwise is born of malice of intent. And only peaceful assembly is protected by the First Amendment.
Hmmm. Interesting way of looking at it. I'm not sure that changes things significantly, though. Causing "psychological" harm and attributing "malice" as something that makes their assembly unpeaceful seems a pretty slippery slope, as I can see the same being claimed for any number of far less loathesome groups than the WBCers.
There is ample evidence that the mode of protest is chosen not because there is no alternative, but because the trauma is easiest to inflict upon those already in grief. There are studies linking suicide to shaming as well as deaths of loved ones. The word "peaceful" is in the amendment for a reason, and it is to prevent not only riots but things like this which are arguably as bad.
But consider for a moment the more grim possibility that you are indeed very correct: after all, the right to assembly is now frequently restricted by petition and permission, and you simply can't do it at certain political events at all. Since the slippery slope has already been crossed, we might as well get some damn good out of it.
+Gary Roth – I like you. Your mind works in nice, reasonable ways. (Just like +Dave Hill 's)
That someone's speech (or religion, or press, or assembling) causes emotional trauma does not rise to the level of forbidding it, or putting it out of site, or restricting when it can be done. If anti-abortion protesters can parade outside of women's clinics with grotesque photos to try and shock, shame, or otherwise emotionally traumatize the women going there, as long as they don't physically interfere, or if the American Nazi Party can get a parade permit through the largely Jewish neighborhood of Skokie, then the Phelpsies shouldn't be restricted in their foul attempt to emotionally bruise others.
Though I do like your final thought on the slippery slope.
Maybe one could demand that the Phelpsians be forcibly transported to Romney fundraisers…
He is, after all, the One Mighty and Strong. He can sort them out, you know, if not Mitt, then who?
+Andreas Geisler What connection did this have to the Presidential Election, and why did we need to establish one?
Beyond the general topic of crazed cultists?