westboro clowns sink to a new low

I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church's acronym is N.A.M.B.L.A., right?

 

Could you cite the case in which the Supreme Court is considering a challenge to a law such as this?

 

NAMBLA members will be be several levels of hell higher than the Westboro Baptist Church members.

 

Snyder v. Phelps

 

That's what I thought you were talking about. That case has nothing to do with a time-place-manner law. Or any criminal law, for that matter.

 

Your constitutional analysis is lacking. time-place-manner regulations on speech are generally allowed when they are "content neutral." Banning "protesters" in a funeral zone is a content-based restriction and therefore will not be constitutional under normal circumstances.

Snyder v. Phelps is not a direct challenge to a criminal statute, true enough, but the issues of government regulating speech (in this particular case, though a lawsuit and jury verdict that was upheld) based on content (i.e. protesting) is the same issue that would be argued in a challenge to a law like this Arizona one.

 

This is just my opinion, but I think the Arizona law will stand. If the legislature banned protests at funeral altogether, there may be an issue. However, setting up a no-protest zone doesn't count as prohibiting free speech. Depends on a judge's interpretation, though.

 

Protesting is a manner, not a type of content. See Hill v. Colorado.

 

The 1st Amendment generally protects free speech. A statute regulating speech may be challenged for, among other reasons, constituting a prior restraint on speech. A regulation of speech in public places like the Arizona law will be upheld if it meets a 3-part test. It must:

1. Be content nuetral (e.g. "No signs in the median" is content neutral while "no politcal signs in the median" is not content neutral)

2. Be narrowly tailored, and

3. Further a significant government interest

The Arizona law bans the non-content-neutral "protesting." If people can pray there but not protest it is a non-neutral regulation and will be given strict scrutiny and will thus be held unconstitutional.

 

What about Hill v. Colorado? Isn't that the precedent you use to tailor the law?

 

Be interesting to see if the AFL-CIO files a brief in support of the funeral law, if it ever goes to court. Or if they stay far, far away from this one.

 

That case doesn't say what you say it says. That case says approaching someone to hand them something is conduct, not speech. Conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. For example, if I'm at a legal protest in the park and I say "This is what I think of the government" and I empty a trash can onto the park grass, and am ticketed for littering, I can't avoid the ticket on First Amendment grounds. That Hill v. Colorado case stands for the same proposition. It has nothing to do with whether protesting is content-neutral. It is not.