UPDATE: Missouri House approves funeral protest restrictions

Thursday, March 3, 2011 | 6:49 p.m. CST

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House pressed forward Thursday to put new restrictions on funeral protests, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this week affirming the First Amendment right of groups such as Westboro Baptist Church to hold demonstrations.

State lawmakers said they want to keep protesters away from funerals to protect mourners from intrusions and because of fears that violence could be directed at demonstrators.

The House voted 142-15 Thursday to approve legislation that would make it a misdemeanor to protest within 500 feet of a cemetery, mortuary, church or other house of worship from two hours before a funeral to two hours after the ceremony. Violators would face up to six months in jail. The legislation also would make it easier for people to file lawsuits for the infliction of emotional distress against protesters who violate those restrictions.

That bill — now moving to the Senate — comes after a federal judge declared last year that two Missouri funeral protest laws approved in 2006 were unconstitutional.

The legislative efforts are aimed at members of the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church. Its members hold funeral demonstrations across the country, contending that the deaths are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. Many of the protests have been at funerals for members of the military.

Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Westboro and ended a lawsuit brought by Albert Snyder, who sued church members for the emotional pain caused by a demonstration at his son Matthew's funeral in Maryland. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court that the First Amendment protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

Supporters of Missouri's legislation said Thursday that they do not think the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling would directly affect their measure because that case involved a civil lawsuit and the bill generally involves criminal penalties.

"We are creating a crime that has reasonable time, place and manner restrictions," said Rep. Mike Colona, D-St. Louis, who is an attorney. "That is a completely different standard of review, a completely different area of the law than the case that was decided by the Supreme Court."

Critics said the Missouri legislation inhibited free speech rights and that the high court's ruling in the funeral protest case strengthened doubts about whether the proposed protest restrictions are constitutional.

"We must protect free speech that we hate," said Rep. Rory Ellinger, D-University City. "That is the essence of the First Amendment."

Others noted that free speech rights are not absolute and already have been limited in some cases.

Rep. John McCaherty said the legislation set rules for protesting and did not restrict what people could say.

"If Westboro Baptist Church or any other association or something like that would like to come and protest, you are more than welcome, come on down. But we are setting guidelines," said McCaherty, R-High Ridge. "You have the right to do this, but we have the right to tell you when, where and how."

Several Missouri communities have faced a legal challenge after approving local ordinances that restrict funeral protests. Among those are St. Charles city and county. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Thursday that local officials there said they planned to continue try to prevent protests outside funerals. A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, which has represented the church, said the Supreme Court's ruling would strengthen its argument.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Paul Allaire March 3, 2011 | 7:50 p.m.

It appears that the learning curve of the Missouri legislature is somewhat behind that of the Westborons. Bit I have read that many of the Westborons are lawyers, so why did they need the ACLU? I would think that the ACLU would have no problem finding a more significant issue to defend and for people who were not lawyers themselves. I would have told the church to divert it's legal team from suing the people they incite to defending it's right to incite them.

I am seriously thinking that their brand of Christianity might well be very popular if they could just send it ....
to IRAQ!!!

(Report Comment)
Danny Haszard March 4, 2011 | 6:28 a.m.

Jehovah's Witnesses pursued court decisions to get in your face at the door steps,these same actions uphold rights of infamous hate church.
Danny Haszard
my page more on Jehovah's Witnesses harassment

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.