1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

westboro clowns sink to a new low

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by albert77, Jan 11, 2011.

  1. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    The court thinks I'm right. Hill v. Colorado was a case in which the complaint specifically tried to get it overturned for not being content-neutral because it targetted protesting, and the court dismissed that argument. I'm not sure what more you want to see.
     
  2. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Conversely, can you cite any case law in which the act of protesting has been considered content and not a manner?
     
  3. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    I've given you the analysis. I've explained to you why the law in the Hill case you refer to is different from the Arizona law in question here.

    Regulating the manner of speech would be like regulating the size, color, or height of a billboard, regulating whether leaflets (any leaflets at all) may be handed out, regulating how loudly someone may amplify their megaphone. The key to time, place, manner restrictions on speech is that it's an "all or nothing" approach. either all speech is allowed or none is.

    "Protest" or "not protest" are not manners of speech.
     
  4. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    So surely, with all the laws designed to hamper protests in this country, that point would have been upheld in at least one decided case?
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    What about the Frisbee case? The ordinance, I think, was that you can't picket one person's home.
     
  6. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    The analysis is the analysis. It's right. Neither you nor anyone else has even seriously challenged it. I'm not interested in writing a Supreme Court brief for Justice RickStain on it. Go on Amazon and get Emmanuel's on Con Law or take a Con Law II class if you want further education on the topic. This has been fun, though.
     
  7. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    Found a good discussion of exactly my point here, in Ward v. Rock, 491 U.S. 781:

    Our cases make clear, however, that even in a public forum the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions "are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information." We consider these requirements in turn.

    The principal inquiry in determining content neutrality, in speech cases generally and in time, place, or manner cases in particular, is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys. The government's purpose is the controlling consideration. A regulation that serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others. Government regulation of expressive activity is content neutral so long as it is "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech."

    ***

    So, what's the government's purpose with the Arizona law? Do we know? Of course we do. It's to stop WBC from protesting. In determining content neutrality the government's purpose is the "controlling consideration." Thus, the law is a content-based restriction on speech, thus unconstitutional. The end.
     
  8. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Go read Hill v. Colorado again for why that argument doesn't wash. The Court explicitly stated "its enactment was primarily motivated by activities in the vicinity of abortion clinics," but went on to say that it was irrelevant, because the government has a valid interest in protecting an unwilling listener from intrusive speech if that person is in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of being able to avoid such intrusion.

    In that case, the court specifically took on the argument you just made and dismissed it, just like your argument that protests are a type of content.
     
  9. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Another very important excerpt from Hill v. Colorado that is very relevant to this case:

    The Court has *specifically* ruled that people shouldn't have to not have to undertake a "Herculean effort" to avoid a protest in a setting in which they have some expectation of privacy, and that the government can regulate to that effect.
     
  10. bigbadeagle

    bigbadeagle Member

    The assholes from Westboro Baptist did show up at a military funeral in my hometown a few years ago. Even with a gigantic base right next door that has sent troops to Iraq for four rotations, it's one of the few funerals we've had.
    The WBC point guy sat in the city administrator's office and said the city will do this and will do that. They use the threat of a lawsuit to get their way.
    He said, OK, fine, you can protest. But the right to free speech extends to the family's right to mourn. So he set up a spot for them about 100 yards from the church. The folks in attendance really couldn't see them as they entered the church, which was great. They got to stand there in the middle of Main Street in a roped off area close enough to see the church but far enough away to where they did not interact with anybody. The SWAT team was gathered in our back parking lot, just in case.
    Our receptionist was very, very upset about them being there. Her brother and husband were in Iraq at the time. I told her to don't go outside, don't look out the front door and go to the back for the next hour or so. Hell, I even stood to next to the sheriff and told him that if he wanted to turn his back for five minutes, I'd make a couple of calls and all he'd need to do is get a few guys out there with mops to clean up whatever mess there would be since the folks I know don't ever leave much of an evidence trail.
    The Westboro gang left before the service was over. One of the most disgusting things about this group — and that's saying something — is they have their children, as young as 4 or 5 years old, out there holding their signs.
    Wonder if anybody has ever thought about charging them with child cruelty.
     
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    So you advocate vigilante execution on the grounds that the people were being idiots? Sheesh. That's pretty harsh.

    Again: Just ignore them.
     
  12. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    It's interesting. Ward lays out the general framework I discussed above. Under that framework, the Arizona law is not content neutral and thus would be struck down. (Note that Stevens, my favorite justice, who authored Hill, dissented in Ward). Hill does not overrule Ward, but distinguishes it.

    The facts of Hill are not directly on point to the Arizona statute, so it's applicability to the present case is questionable. I think the operative facts in Hill are that the law establishes an 8-foot buffer from a person and prohibits a protester from "knowingly approaching" another. Whereas here, there is a 300-foot buffer and even protesters who stand still and approach no one are in violation of the law. The "knowingly approaching" proscription in the law in Hill I think restricts conduct and not speech, and therefore makes Hill inapposite in the case of the Arizona law. Additionally, comparing the 8-foot buffer in Hill as opposed to the 300-foot buffer (some 37 times the distance) raise further questions about whether the Arizona law is sufficiently narrowly tailored. I think Stevens would say the Arizona law is distinguishable from the law in Hill and thus inapplicable. If the Hill case fails, then Ward applies and the Arizona law is unconstitutional.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page