California To Pass Law Limiting Funeral Protests In Response To "Stupid" Supreme Court Decision

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Alarmed by instances of loud protests at military funerals, state lawmakers advanced a proposal Wednesday that would restrict such picketing so it is not disruptive.

The state Senate approved a bill by Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) that would make it a misdemeanor to picket a funeral in a disruptive way on private property within 1,000 feet of the ceremony.

"This is a bill that preserves the sanctity and dignity of funerals," Lieu told his colleagues before the 36-1 vote to pass SB 888 and send it to the Assembly for action.

The vote comes just months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Pastor Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church have a constitutional right to picket military funerals. Phelps and his congregation do so claiming the deaths of U.S. soldiers are divine retribution for the country's toleration of homosexuality. The picketing has included signs that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "God Hates Fags."

Lieu said he crafted the state legislation to comply with the limits set by the court ruling.

"I accept the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to render stupid decisions, but protesters should not be able to disrupt actual funeral services,"’ Lieu said.

To those that think this goes against the Supreme Court's ruling, as Sen. Lieu might, the Supreme Court in Snyder v. Phelps (2011) in fact expressly stated: "That said, '[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times.' Westboro’s choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the Government’s regulatory reach—it is 'subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions' that are consistent with the standards announced in this Court’s precedents. Maryland now has a law imposing restrictions on funeral picketing, as do 43 other States and the Federal Government. To the extent these laws are content neutral, they raise very different questions from the tort verdict at issue in this case. Maryland’s law, however, was not in effect at the time of the events at issue here, so we have no occasion to consider how it might apply to facts such as those before us, or whether it or other similar regulations are constitutional."

In the Supreme Court decision from a few months ago, the father of the fallen soldier Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit based on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") against Westboro based on the protests relatively near the Church service (though not directly nearby at all) and some vile internet postings about their son. The father won a $5 million dollar award from the jury for his successful tort claim. The Supreme Court ruled that "the jury verdict imposing tort liability on Westboro for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be set aside." The Court said that even though Westboro contained "messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues." The Court basically then ruled, "Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment " That was pretty much the extent of the ruling.

They did not, however, as the quote above makes absolutely clear, address the issue of a State law like the new CA one or like many other States have passed as well. In fact, they expressly pointed out that they were not ruling on those sorts of laws at all and strongly hinted that such a law would be upheld as Constitutional. Tweet