Arizona's Legislature passed a bill that bars protesters at funerals

[nyker96]

The Arizona State Legislature in Phoenix, meanwhile, passed legislation Tuesday that bars protesters at funerals from getting within 300 feet of services.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/11/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[blackangst1]

:thumbsup:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nit pick. It isn't a ban, but a protest free zone. That's important because Westboro could have an outright ban overruled.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why haven't other states passed laws like this?

 

[shortylickens]

Why haven't other states passed laws like this?

Nit pick. It isn't a ban, but a protest free zone. That's important because Westboro could have an outright ban overruled.

Its not hard to make a federal case out of anything, provided you have the money and the people to make a big deal out of it.

 

[D1gger]

Westboro will challenge this law as unconstitutional, and if they win, will get more funding for their wacko cause through civil litigation and collecting legal fees (they are their own lawyers).

 

[Mean MrMustard]

I thought free speech zones were unconstitutional? Oh how the ATPN world turns...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Westboro will challenge this law as unconstitutional, and if they win, will get more funding for their wacko cause through civil litigation and collecting legal fees (they are their own lawyers).

Well they can try but since protest free zones have long been held Constitutional it will be an expensive and protracted battle. AZ has more money than Westboro.

 

[her209]

I thought free speech zones were unconstitutional? Oh how the ATPN world turns...

Its not unconstitutional if you agree with it.

/sarcasm

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Its not unconstitutional if you agree with it.

/sarcasm

That's so 20th century. General Welfare is where it's at baby!

 

[DominionSeraph]

Its not unconstitutional if you agree with it.

Pretty much the case. Look at child porn. (or don't)

 

[schneiderguy]

This law is an unconstitutional abuse of power by the government. "Small government" republicans at work again.

 

[spittledip]

Good sense prevails in Arizona. At least in this case.

 

[exdeath]

Is this really necessary? Pretty sure cemeteries/mortuaries are private property? First Amendment doesn't protect a right to trespass. I don't object to the reason behind it, but it seems redundant, waste of legislative energy, symbolic only, and purely knee jerk and emotional. Just another meaningless empty law on the books when those assholes could all be booked for trespassing on private property.

Unless I'm mistaken and it's not private property, in which case it's great but needs to be more than 300 ft. Make it like 100 yards.

 

[Venix]

Why haven't other states passed laws like this?

They have. And in a completely unsurprising twist, the laws have never actually been used for their stated purpose, but have been misused to stifle free speech and abuse innocent people.

In Michigan, a decorated military veteran and his wife were arrested for driving a van with political signs in a funeral procession. They were close friends of the deceased and had been invited by his family to participate in the procession and funeral. But two scumbag pigs were offended by the anti-Bush slogans, so they arrested the victims under the funeral protest law. Prosecutors dropped charges at the deceased's family's request, but by that time the funeral was over and the victims had missed it.

This is the inevitable result of any law that infringes on civil rights, no matter how minor the infringment may seem. Give the government any additional power and it will be abused.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

They have. And in a completely unsurprising twist, the laws have never actually been used for their stated purpose, but have been misused to stifle free speech and abuse innocent people.

In Michigan, a decorated military veteran and his wife were arrested for driving a van with political signs in a funeral procession. They were close friends of the deceased and had been invited by his family to participate in the procession and funeral. But two scumbag pigs were offended by the anti-Bush slogans, so they arrested the victims under the funeral protest law. Prosecutors dropped charges at the deceased's family's request, but by that time the funeral was over and the victims had missed it.

This is the inevitable result of any law that infringes on civil rights, no matter how minor the infringment may seem. Give the government any additional power and it will be abused.

Please provide direct factual information which verifies the motives (that they only did so out of vindictive spite) of the police officers with their enforcement of a state law? Unless you are of the inconsistent belief that police should pick and choose which laws they should enforce.

 

[Venix]

Please provide direct factual information which verifies the motives (that they only did so out of vindictive spite) of the police officers with their enforcement of a state law? Unless you are of the inconsistent belief that police should pick and choose which laws they should enforce.

Are you seriously suggesting that Michigan law allows invited guests of a funeral to be arrested for allegedly protesting that very same funeral, even when the funeral organizers & deceased's family oppose their arrest? Are you braindead?

In any case, the motive of the dumbshit cops is irrelevant; maybe they weren't malicious, but were simply as incredibly ignorant of the law as you are. I really don't care because they're scumbags for interrupting the funeral either way. The relevant point of my post is that the law was used against people who were quite obviously not its intended targets, and that this should serve as a warning to people who support knee-jerk feel-good bullshit like funeral protest laws.

And in fact, police officers are rarely required to take a person into physical custody. If they honestly believed that the law was being violated and weren't just being vindictive pricks, they could have simply filed a report and allowed the district attorney's office to decide whether to press charges.

 

[CPA]

Unless I'm mistaken and it's not private property, in which case it's great but needs to be more than 300 ft. Make it like 100 yards.

Is the smiley a clue to sarcasm? 300ft = 100 yards.

 

[Minjin]

I'm in favor of a cool down period where no related legislation is allowed to be presented after an "incident". Maybe it isn't something that you can easily codify but it should be standard practice. Too often, these reactionary laws end up causing us problems down the road.

 

[Vette73]

Westboro will challenge this law as unconstitutional, and if they win, will get more funding for their wacko cause through civil litigation and collecting legal fees (they are their own lawyers).

THIS!!!


This is how the nuts get money to keep this up. City/State pass a stupid law like this and they just eat it up. So not only will this not stand but they will make money off it and use that to do it again and again.

 

[Vette73]

Is this really necessary? Pretty sure cemeteries/mortuaries are private property? First Amendment doesn't protect a right to trespass. I don't object to the reason behind it, but it seems redundant, waste of legislative energy, symbolic only, and purely knee jerk and emotional. Just another meaningless empty law on the books when those assholes could all be booked for trespassing on private property.

Unless I'm mistaken and it's not private property, in which case it's great but needs to be more than 300 ft. Make it like 100 yards.

They setup in town or on public sidewalks. They are lawyers and know the law so they use it to make money off citys and states that try and block them.

 

[PokerGuy]

This is a bad thing. As much as I despise WBC and their merry band of hateful idiots, I don't want to see laws that infringe on constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly.