Wrin wrote:
If I understand this correctly, a law banning peaceful protests of any sort is irrelevant. I might also point out that (a law) protecting funerals in any way shape or form <strike>is</strike>
can be argued to be illegal:
Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This protects citizens from the federal government only. However:
Amendment 14 Section 1 wrote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This has been interpreted by the supreme court (I don't remember the exact case) to mean that the First amendment restrictions of the Federal Gov't apply to state governments as well.
Wrin wrote:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment wrote:
harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.
Edited for clarification and spelling.
Phelps does not make demands or threats, nor are his actions continued against any particular person, so it would be a stretch to apply this definition to Phelps. Unfortunately it seems that Phelps has the constitution on his side. There will a legal battle over this and probably very soon.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/pickets.html wrote:
WBC to picket funeral of Army Pfc. Christopher L. Marion - at 1 p.m., Saturday, Mar. 4, at Ozark Funeral Home, Anderson, Missouri. He was killed Feb. 22, by IED - like the IED America bombed WBC with in a terroristic effort to silence our anti-gay Gospel preaching by violent intimidation.
So Phelps plans his next "Love Crusade" of protesting a feuneral of a soldier in Missouri for this Saturday.