The controversial, gay-hating Westboro Baptist Church would be restricted from holding its inflammatory protests outside the funerals of U.S. service members under a new bill being offered by a bipartisan group of senators.
The Kansas-based church often sends members to attend final rites for service members killed at war, waving signs that claim God hates the deceased because America tolerates homosexuality.
Earlier Thursday, five church members protested such a funeral in Florida, and were met by a much larger counter-protest, Patch reported.
Drawn up by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act -- or SERVE Act -- would mandate two hours of quiet time before and after funerals, and set a 300-foot buffer zone around the funerals and a 500-foot buffer around routes to and from the memorials.
It sets fines ranging from $25,000 to $50,000, and jail sentences of up to two years.
"Those who fight and die in the service of our country deserve our highest respect," said Snowe. "Their families have earned the right to bury their loved ones in peace."
The bottom line, the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of and in support of the free speech rights of Westboro Baptist and their activities while protesting at the site of recently killed American soldiers.
That these heathen Christians are wrong in their beliefs and their expressions of belief is not really at issue with the court. What is at issue is the protection of first amendment rights as granted by the constitution. Specifically, the right to be wrong and the right to publicly say so unencumbered by law or opposing opinion.
As it stands with the most recent Westboro vs. Snyder ruling, the Supreme court has given all lower courts the ammunition needed to immediately strike down all efforts and attempts to silence the Westboro loons on free speech issues. And with that ruling (by significant majority of the court,) the court has sent the clear message that they have absolutely no intention of revisiting the issue anytime soon. Or even during this generation if you follow previous Supreme Court decisions historically.
Therefore, this 'SERVE' act as proposed and endorsed by senator Snowe, represents very little aside from perfunctory legislative saber rattling. When it comes to enforcement, local authorities may choose to enforce this proposed law or any myriad of similar statutes. They may choose to initiate arrests or other official intervention at subsequent protests for violations of said laws, but to do so immediately sets the stage for injunctive relief and ultimately punitive civil damages against whom ever may attempt to bypass the most recent determinations of the Supreme Court as it applies to Westboro and similar protest groups and their free speech activities.
Personally, I believe the proper legal test bed for successfully challenging Westboro lies not in the foundation of the first amendment and the court's interpretations of free speech, but rather in the foundational concepts of the fourth and fourteenth amendment protections of individual rights from state intrusion and the states obligation to protect individuals from unreasonable intrusion into their privacy.
Certainly there are constitutional scholars who might balk at that proposal, but I would hasten to remind them that the larger portion of the precedent supporting the legalization of abortion was found inside the interpretations of the same amendments by the court and that their construct has stood for almost forty years now.
The bottom line, as it presently exists, Westboro Baptist Church and their flock of loons are literally unrestricted in their practices of emotional intimidation against the families of fallen soldiers. And unless and until the court has reason to call forth individual protections against the intentional infliction of emotional pain against survivors during what are unarguably private moments, this type of lunacy will continue and it will continue with constitutional approval and protection under the first amendment.
What the court must be confronted with is the overwhelming necessity to weigh one set of individual rights against the individual rights and interests of others and the court must be provided with the constitutional means to justify limiting the application of one specific right, in order to protect the larger individual right to privacy. Especially during emotionally vulnerable moments such as funerals.
Simply stated, this is a due process equal protection issue and unless and until the court addresses it in that fashion, Westboro and those like minded will continue to be able to inflict emotional pain and distress on the innocent.
No comments:
Post a Comment