Privacy and Funeral Protests
Christina E. Wells
University of Missouri School of Law
December 8, 2008
North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 87, p. 151, 2008
University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-06
This Article examines the free speech implications of funeral protest statutes. Enacted in response to the Westboro Baptist Church, whose members protest at funerals to spread their antigay message, such statutes restrict a broad array of peaceful expressive activity. This Article focuses on the states’ interest underlying these statutes - protecting mourners’ right to be free from unwanted intrusions while at funeral services. Few would argue against protecting funeral services from intrusive protests. These statutes, however, go far beyond that notion and protect mourners from offensive, rather than intrusive, protests. As such, they do not conceive of privacy as protection from intrusion. Rather, they conceive of privacy as protecting human dignity from breaches of civility. American law does not traditionally recognize this conception of privacy. How then do such statutes come to rely on it? To some extent, the fault lies with the Supreme Court’s free speech jurisprudence, which has been somewhat unclear regarding the nature of the privacy interest it weighs against free speech rights. Although a careful read of the Court’s cases shows that it rejects an interpretation of privacy as protecting against breaches of civility, its jurisprudence sends mixed signals. Lower courts hearing challenges to funeral protest statutes have misread the Court’s jurisprudence and have recognized a privacy right to be free from offensive messages while attending funerals. If allowed to stand, these decisions will work a dramatic change in the Court’s doctrine.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 84
Keywords: funeral protest, funeral picketing, privacy, captive audience, Phelps, free speech, first amendment, constitutional law
JEL Classification: K10, K30Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: March 16, 2008 ; Last revised: May 6, 2009
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.516 seconds