Law To Ban Fred Phelps - Westboro Baptist Church Funeral Protest

by NowPublic Staff | January 11, 2011 at 10:24 am

2017 views | 0 Recommendations | 10 comments

Arizona Legislature To Ban Fred Phelps And Westboro Baptist Church Protest Funerals For Victims Of Tucson Shooting (Fred Phelps Video)

Update: Arizona Funeral Protest Bill Passed

The Arizona Legislature has approved emergency legislation to head off picketing by a Topeka, Kan., church at the funeral service for a 9-year-old girl who was killed during Saturday's shooting in Tucson.

Unanimous votes by the House and Senate on Tuesday send the bill to Gov. Jan Brewer for her expected signature.

The bill prohibiting protests at or near funeral sites would take effect immediately.

The Arizona state legislature is hoping to pass a law banning protests at the funerals of the shooting victims of the Tucson Tragedy.

The action, according to Senate spokesman Daniel Scarpinato, is in direct response to a controversial church's announcement that it will picket the funeral of Christina Green, the 9-year-old who was one of six people killed Saturday during the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, has made its name by staging protests at funerals of people who died of AIDS, gay people, soldiers and even Coretta Scott King.

Residents are understandably outraged about the planned protest announced by the attention seeking Fred Phelps, and the congregation at the Westboro Baptist Church.

Video: Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church Hate Filled Call To Protest Funerals Of Arizona Shooting Victims

If Arizona lawmakers want the funeral protest ban law to pass they will have to act quickly.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the lead sponsor on the bill, said in an e-mail to colleagues that the plan is to suspend the rules Tuesday and fast-track the bill to protect the victims' families from the "hateful protest" from the Westboro Baptist Church.

She said she has the support of the Senate president and Gov. Jan Brewer, and the bill will go into effect "immediately" once it's signed.

"It's gonna happen," Sinema said. The senator said she was "real upset" after learning that the Westboro church planned on protesting but had a visceral reaction after reading their press release and sprung into action.

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

batvette

at 15:29 on January 11th, 2011

Nope, can't do it, expect this legislation to be quickly implemented now but eventually struck down as unconstitutional, as it should be.

Fred Phelps and his group, as distasteful and despicable as they are, have the right to appear in public with their repugnant message and no law shall impede nor prevent their right to voice it.

Jeremy Beeze (not verified)

at 17:38 on January 11th, 2011

I would venture to say that they are not being deprived of their 1st amendment right so much as they are being denied access to a certain area. Like a restraining order if you will. They are not allowed within 100 yards of the funeral. It does not seem to say that they are not allowed to picket and protest they are just not allowed to harass the victims and their families. I agree that the group is repugnant and our rights should never be allowed to be compromised even in the case of this mob of filth. But I also feel that the family members of he victims have a right to gather in peace as well, to share their mutual pain and beliefs with one another without the often violent (verbal abuse counts) gathering of these disgusting people.

batvette

at 18:10 on January 11th, 2011

Good points and I've probably nothing to argue with as we're on the same page entirely-but previous attempts at legislating these nuts have been failures or just plain wrong, as it always seemed to revolve around "shutting these idiots up" in the name of good taste or decorum- and the slippery slope thing deems that you can't go there.

We can only really be thankful that the Fred Phelps' of the world are rare or the constitution would have been long ago discarded.

Even exclusion from certain areas to protect the victims from hearing or seeing this- it's not feasible to do in a way which would not also be abused to protect a certain party's officials against having to hear protests by dissidents at functions. Including funerals.

In the end, the legislature convening to act on this matter made the news and Fred Phelps got what he wanted, didn't he. The only real solution is next time, say "Fred who? Okay let him come, who cares?" and don't report it and if he shows up you ignore him. After awhile he gets tired of going to all that trouble and expense just to be ignored. We wouldn't be discussing this today if that philosophy was used at the onset.

Even supposed successful solutions like the wall of bikers showing up, gave Phelps the publicity he sought. His message got on the news.

I will admit I have a hard time adhering to that on the level of internet trolls, when the best tactic is ignoring them I want to argue for pages, so... meh. Easy to posit advice, harder to live it.

Maybe I'll drive to Arizona (I'm in San Diego) for the service and join the fray shouting at him.

Katriana (not verified)

at 20:14 on January 11th, 2011

perhaps a law about hate speech should be invoked instead...where i am from, free speech does not equate to freedom of consequences of said speech...hate speech here is a crime, punishable by the law, as it should be...

batvette

at 00:42 on January 12th, 2011

Hate Speech: Definition?

James G (not verified)

at 20:28 on January 11th, 2011

i dont see how this is unconstitutional. I believe that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness trumps all other rights. As such, a right for a family to grieve, not for happiness as we normally see it, but so that that family can regain happiness by observing the death in their private respectful manner. A funeral is not a place for spoken word, discussion, debate, rights to disgrace the deceased. If our country wants to talk about being civil, this is a must in order to gain respect from other countries. If someone wants to debate, discuss or contend about the deceased, they can do so on the public street corner any day of the week, noone will stop them. That is how the law was originally designed. It was considered ashame for anyone to show up at a funeral, friend or foe, and make it a mockery of conflictual beliefs. Anyone, including you for thinking this is 'blocking' freedom of speech is obviously very liberal and makes me nervous or is too stupid to understand what good manners is, which is more likely the case, since most of the problems in the United States stem from the lack of bad parenting in the last 40 years.

batvette

at 00:39 on January 12th, 2011

I don't think I have much to say to anyone who thinks strict interpretation of the constitution makes me "too liberal" or thinks my argument as such makes me "too stupid to know what good manners are".

I'm so anti-anti-war, I can destroy the arguments of a thousand Iraq war critics in a single bound (LOL, half joking, but I have debated that issue extensively), and voted for W in '04. I blame most of our current economic woes on "Beijing" Bill Clinton, for facilitating, in exchange for personal and political wealth, the wholesale transfer of all our manufacturing knowledge to China, whose industrious and intelligent people quickly exploited this and now supply the world.

Am I too liberal to have common sense?

(to dispel any rumours I'm anything but conservative, however)

As Faithless Templar alludes, the thing that makes your position hollow is who gets to decide what constitutes "good manners" or good taste down the road? Would it be ok if people stood across the street of a funeral for Bush and protested the war with good taste? Probably so. How do we draw a line between that and this event?

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.

Maybe it's the stupid liberal part of centrist me that couldn't find your "good taste" filter in that passage.

Phelps is going to peaceably assemble his people for a religion oriented protest at the site of a funeral with albeit tenuously light political overtones. His right to do so, no matter how repugnant we feel the message is, must be protected. In a short phrase, I think you aren't grasping "slippery slope" as it pertains to this.

Finally, isn't "lack of bad parenting" GOOD parenting? Or is my "English to not stupid conservativese" translator program on the fritz?

LOL. Just funnin' ya.

FaithlessTemplar

at 20:18 on January 11th, 2011

Then the problem would be what exactly consitutes 'hate speech'.

I think you would reduced to a state where expressing dislike/disapproval for anything could be considered hateful

Airesbud (not verified)

at 10:04 on January 12th, 2011

WBC is an outrageous group that has no realistic view on anything....DAMN....very bizarre. As a gay man I can't help myself but to post something because you just piss me off. Mr Phelps you're close to your ultimate reward, hope you enjoy it....because it isn't going to be close to God. Probably in this weird hellish universe where all you people go to where we won't have to listen to you and your associates any longer. Enjoy the ride!

batvette

at 05:01 on January 13th, 2011

but all you really did there was express the same sentiment to him that he expresses about his particular irrational obsession. (albeit yours having some justification and rationality as he started it)

So given the right scenario, if we legislated against Phelps, we have to also legislate against your reply to him.

And even though I am squarely on your page about his views, tell me, don't you still realize that he has a right to express them and your disagreement with them alone shouldn't be cause to silence him? You can't legislate what is repugnant or distasteful. Society as a whole does this with constantly shifting standards, with peer pressure in any arena it comes to be judged punishing those who stray far outside it. Sometimes a small number like Phelps will revel in the condemnation and revulsion by peers, the attention is enough, acceptance by the many not required. (these were the kids we remember in school, perhaps 1 in 1000, who did things that got them beat up bad- and they wanted it!)

Part of the problem here is that much of the country, at least Fred's part, still believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and (a smaller percentage also believe) a conscious decision to sin. I'm pretty sure most worldly and informed people realize it's the contrary, something not chosen or that one could just come back "from the dark side" and be hetero at the drop of a hat.

I think this is relevant because in Fred's mind it's not like he's saying "God hates blacks". His ignorance is so complete it is rationalized like "God hates drunk drivers", he is a preacher condemning sinners.

Until you beat it into their heads that not everyone is genetically ingrained or environmentally conditioned (whichever the case, isn't the jury still out on that?) for 2.3 kids, twice monthly missionary position sex with the girl next door you married, etc, WBC is going to continue their Quixotesque mission of stupidity jousting pink windmills riding the jackass Fred Phelps.

Sadly, it's their beliefs and they are allowed to have them. All things must pass, maybe not in our lifetimes...

Finally, as much as I disliked Michael Moore for his dishonest presentation of Bush, 9/11 and foreign policy, he pretty much redeemed himself with that piece he produced about WBC and that was just priceless to see the looks on their faces. It looked like they almost gave in a few times....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-h3Wl5wVns

(for those who haven't seen it)