Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...ACLU: Fred Phelps-motivated law unconstitutional
04.02.2009 8:26am EDT
(Lansing, Michigan) A lawsuit challenging Michigan’s law restricting funeral protests was filed Wednesday on behalf of a couple who were pulled over and arrested during a procession for a friend killed in Iraq because their van bore signs critical of then-President George W. Bush.
The American Civil Liberties Union says the 2006 state law is unconstitutional. It was approved with bipartisan support in response to an anti-gay church that has protested at funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.“Although the Legislature may have had honorable motives in passing the law, this case is a textbook example of what happens when the state gives police officers unchecked power to arrest people who express unpopular views,” said Michael Steinberg, legal director for the ACLU of Michigan.
The ACLU filed the federal lawsuit in Bay City against Clare County and two sheriff’s deputies on behalf of a 64-year-old Army veteran Lewis Lowden and his late wife, Jean.
They were arrested in September 2007 in Harrison, about 140 miles northwest of Detroit, on their way to the burial of Army Cpl. Todd Motley, 23, of Clare, who died in Muqdadiyah of wounds suffered when a bomb exploded near his vehicle during combat.
The suit, which seeks unspecified damages from the county, says the Lowdens were close family friends. Jean Lowden home-schooled Motley in high school and Lewis Lowden took him on fishing and camping trips.
Lewis Lowden for years had taped homemade political signs to the inside windows of his van criticizing the president and government policies, the lawsuit said. They made statements such as “Impeach Cheney-Bush” and “G.W. Bush: The Reason Why Murphy Wrote His Law.”
No one complained about the signs when the Lowdens arrived for the funeral, according to the suit.
But during the funeral procession, viewed by hundreds of onlookers, the Lowdens were pulled over and arrested. They missed the burial service. In a statement released by the ACLU, Lewis Lowden said he “can never express the shame and humiliation” he and his wife felt when they were arrested.
Criminal charges were later dropped; the ACLU said Motley’s family had asked prosecutors to drop them.
A message seeking comment from the Clare County Sheriff’s Department was not immediately returned Wednesday.
The federal government and at least 37 states have enacted funeral-protest laws in response to the Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing of military funerals. The Rev. Fred Phelps and his followers claim U.S. combat deaths are God’s punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. Some states’ laws have been struck down.
Michigan’s law makes it a felony to “disturb, disrupt or adversely affect” a funeral within 500 feet of the ceremony or procession. The ACLU says it violates free speech rights and is unconstitutionally vague.
“This is a law you would expect in a totalitarian regime but not in the United States,” Steinberg said. He said the law could have been written narrowly to bar “true disruptions” of a funeral such as loud noise keeping people from being able to listen to the ceremony.
One of the law’s sponsors, Republican Sen. Jud Gilbert of Algonac, said the Lowdens’ case is “very unique.” He said lawmakers were trying to stop protesters from hurling insults at grieving families and did not think of the scenario that played out in Harrison.
“We recognize the right of free speech, that people have a right to demonstrate,” Gilbert said. “If something is not constitutional, I hope the court would give guidance of how we could meet their test.”
Some people don’t have any respect. Freedom of speech is one thing, but protesting at funerals is another, especially for someone who gave his life defending their freedom. This Phelps gang is pathetic, and gives religion a bad name. I’m sure God has a special place in hell for these people.
This is stupid. There is no Free speech violation. The law does not say you cannot protest, it just sets guidelines as to where the protests can take place.
While Phelps is still a disgusting human being, he has a right to express himself in any stupid and senseless way he wants. I hate to admit it but he might be helping the gay cause in the long term. Anyone associating bigotry and homophobia will certainly think about psychos protesting gays at completely unrelated military funerals.
Several years ago there used to be laws against “mashing” which I understand was when people insulted or said derrogatory statements to people in the street or in a public place. Whatever happened to those. Wouldn’t those laws have worked to help prevent people from being harrassed by demonstrators like that? That kind of conduct used to be unacceptable. Those “christians” really should be ashamed of themselves.
Monica, those laws were declared unconstitutional a long time ago.
And there are all sorts of restrictions on free speech, so the basic premise of the law here is sound.
The real problem is the idiocy of the police. What the f*** were they thinking when they pulled a car out of a funeral procession?
The only, I mean the ONLY explanation I can think of is the those “officers” is that they were pro-Bush and used their authority to make a political statement of their own. now, a law that is perfectly legal, one of which they probably approve” will most likely be struck down and we’ll, again, be treated to the spectacle of the Phelps loons haranguing families in their hour of grief.
The only upside is that more people will see the Phelps clan for the frothing lunatics they are.
Clearly this is an example abuse of police powers. While the constitutionality of the law is of course debatable, the law was intended to prevent the disruption of a funeral. In this case, the people who were detained were part of the funeral and the signs on the vehicle constituted federally-protected speech…which happened offend the police offers, who then used the law as an excuse to detain them illegally.
I wonder what the Phelps family has to say about the ACLU protecting their rights.
I hate to say it but I agree with Ozzy. The disgusting Phelps clan has advanced the cause of Gay rights by exposing the religous nutjobs for what they are. Let them protest at soldiers funerals. Let the public see how bigoted and negative the religous “right” really is.
I agree up to the point where their demonmstration interferes with the right to privacy at a funeral. There is no such thing as free speech as words incite actions and there are consequences to them.
As the article said, I think the key is to outlaw the intentional disruption of the funeral. I think that “verbally harassing the deceased and the family” should be a part of law. I don’t think that a grieving family should have to walk within ten feet of signs saying, “Your sodomite loving son deserved to die” and “May your son burn in hell.” To me, that type of speech is an “attack” at a time when the family is most vulnerable. We restrict other kinds of speech, because it can reasonably be expected to be hurtful; I don’t see why we can’t restrict this kind of speech. Say what you have to say 50 yards away from the funeral.
(FWIW, I agree with the court’s ruling. The law was too broad and needs to be narrowed to “disrupting the funeral.”)
This won’t be any more popular than the ACLU’s decision to defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, but in both cases they are right. The First Amendment is sacrosanct.
I absolutely support the repeal of this law. The gay rights movement was constructed on freedom of expression and assembly, and I was annoyed at the original Fred Phelps inspired law. As Ozzy says, even stupid, ignorant views should be given legal expression, even if they are offensive or repugnant. We can’t give police officers the authority to discern what “disruptive” means.
Sadly I see the anti-free speech, PC-crowd is here right on schedule.
” Freedom of speech is one thing, but protesting at funerals is another,” – Bob
Really? What is “protesting at funerals” if not an exercise in free speech? The whole point of free speech is to protect unpopular or unsettling speech.
“There is no such thing as free speech as words incite actions and there are consequences to them.” – TigerTzu
People like you are just scary. You are (irony completely lost on you no doubt) exercising free speech and yet decrying it because someone might say something you don’t like. Your attitude leads in particular to religion and cultures being shielded from criticism about their homophobia and misogyny. Because there might be “consequences” after all.
” To me, that type of speech is an “attack” at a time when the family is most vulnerable. We restrict other kinds of speech, because it can reasonably be expected to be hurtful; I don’t see why we can’t restrict this kind of speech.” – Gerry Fisher
Again not true. In the United States only speech which is deemed likely to cause imminent physical harm or criminal activity can be prevented. In Canada the speech would have to be deemed ‘hate speech’ (a concept which is deeply problematic), but simply being “hurtful” is not a basis for legal censorship.
Defending a vile religious bigot like Phelps & Co. is a defence of your own free speech in the end. As a minority LGBT people should be particularly keen to prevent government interference with unpopular speech and conduct.
If this law is unconstitutional then dissenters should be allowed front-row seats in the Democratic and Republican conventions and it should be lawful to mount protests from the top of the Statue of Liberty.
Banning protests is unconstitutional, but it is appropriate to relegate them to a location (such as 500 feet away) that still gives them media attention but sets appropriate boundaries. You can’t yell fire in a theater and you can’t harass grieving families.
I guess all these inbreds will continue to invade everyone’s privacy and to spew hatred without restrain.