| Revision as of 01:43, 1 September 2009 editJestapher (talk | contribs)28 edits Verbal abuse is generally protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The "Verbal abuse" article even says so.← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:19, 15 October 2009 edit undoRuodyssey (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers10,722 editsm removed quote per WP:Quote (too long, no speaker, no reference, no intro, tagged since Aug 2007)Next edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| The Act was sponsored by ], a Republican ] from Michigan. It was introduced in large part to combat the campaign by ] from the ], of ]. Phelps and his supporters regularly demonstrated at the funerals of American service members who lost their lives in the ], on the grounds that the deaths are divine retribution for social tolerance of ]. While protest is normally protected by the ], ] are not.<ref>See e.g. '']'', 315 U.S. 568 (1942)</ref> | The Act was sponsored by ], a Republican ] from Michigan. It was introduced in large part to combat the campaign by ] from the ], of ]. Phelps and his supporters regularly demonstrated at the funerals of American service members who lost their lives in the ], on the grounds that the deaths are divine retribution for social tolerance of ]. While protest is normally protected by the ], ] are not.<ref>See e.g. '']'', 315 U.S. 568 (1942)</ref> | ||
| "Families deserve the time to bury their American heroes with dignity and in peace," Rogers said. "It saddens me that such a law is necessary, but it is crucial that America put its arms around these grieving families and say ‘we support you and thank you for the sacrifice your loved one has made for our nation’ and that we will do what it takes to protect your right to mourn in quiet peace and with dignity."{{fact|date=August 2007}} | |||
| The Act was approved by the House via roll call vote with an overwhelming majority of 408 to 3. ] (R-]), ] (D-]) and ] (D-]) voted against the Act, opposing it on ] and ] grounds. Twenty-one members of the House of Representatives did not vote. Barney Frank said of the vote, "I think it’s very likely to be found unconstitutional. It’s true that when you defend civil liberties you are typically defending people who do obnoxious things... You play into their hand when you let them provoke you into overdoing it. I don’t want these thugs to claim America is hypocritical.”<ref>''Washington Times'', , May 10, 2006. Retrieved August 6, 2007.</ref> | The Act was approved by the House via roll call vote with an overwhelming majority of 408 to 3. ] (R-]), ] (D-]) and ] (D-]) voted against the Act, opposing it on ] and ] grounds. Twenty-one members of the House of Representatives did not vote. Barney Frank said of the vote, "I think it’s very likely to be found unconstitutional. It’s true that when you defend civil liberties you are typically defending people who do obnoxious things... You play into their hand when you let them provoke you into overdoing it. I don’t want these thugs to claim America is hypocritical.”<ref>''Washington Times'', , May 10, 2006. Retrieved August 6, 2007.</ref> | ||
Revision as of 08:19, 15 October 2009
The Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act (Pub. L. 109–228 (text) (PDF), 120 Stat. 387, enacted May 29, 2006) is an Act of Congress that prohibits protests within 300 feet (100 m) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration (a division of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs) from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment.
The Act was sponsored by Mike Rogers, a Republican congressman from Michigan. It was introduced in large part to combat the campaign by Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kansas. Phelps and his supporters regularly demonstrated at the funerals of American service members who lost their lives in the war in Iraq, on the grounds that the deaths are divine retribution for social tolerance of homosexuality. While protest is normally protected by the First Amendment, fighting words are not.
The Act was approved by the House via roll call vote with an overwhelming majority of 408 to 3. Ron Paul (R-TX), David Wu (D-OR) and Barney Frank (D-MA) voted against the Act, opposing it on civil liberties and constitutional grounds. Twenty-one members of the House of Representatives did not vote. Barney Frank said of the vote, "I think it’s very likely to be found unconstitutional. It’s true that when you defend civil liberties you are typically defending people who do obnoxious things... You play into their hand when you let them provoke you into overdoing it. I don’t want these thugs to claim America is hypocritical.”
The ACLU opposed the legislation, saying that the Act was unconstitutional and that it would not stand up in court. They said of a similar ban in Kentucky, "The ACLU lawsuit recognizes that Kentucky has an interest in showing respect and compassion for the deceased and for their families, but argues that sections of these laws go too far in prohibiting peaceful protests."
The Senate passed the bill unanimously. It was promptly signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 29, 2006.
References
- See e.g. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
- Washington Times, " House OKs ban on funeral protests; Leaders hope to have measure to president by Memorial Day.", May 10, 2006. Retrieved August 6, 2007.
- HubPolitics.com, "Rep. Frank Votes Against "Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act"", May 11, 2006. Retrieved November 29, 2006.
- H.R. 5037 [109th]: Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act (GovTrack.us)
External links
- Text of the statute, via U.S. Government Printing Office
- Original statute information
- December, 2006 amendment information
- Stephen R. McAllister, draft, "Funeral Picketing Laws and Free Speech", Kansas Law Review, University of Kansas School of Law, June 25, 2007
 | This United States federal legislation article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |