War protests at soldiers' funerals spurred passage of the Funeral Dignity Protection Act Thursday'a bill some say may violate First Amendment rights under the U. S. Constitution.
State senators voted unanimously in favor of Senate Bill 525, a proposal that would prohibit protesters from engaging in disorderly conduct within 500 feet of funeral proceedings one hour before and one hour after the ceremony. The bill was drafted in response to incidents in which funerals of fallen soldiers have become a venue for those protesting against the war in Iraq.
Since SB 525 puts restrictions on the manner in which protestors are allowed to express themselves, some experts question whether the bill infringes upon free speech rights.
UW-Madison political science professor and expert in constitutional law, Donald Downs, said the bill must also protect the rights of protesters.
'It's not unreasonable for the state to claim that we want to protect the sanctity of this event a little more; but then you have to worry the more you do, that the more you start to get into viewpoint discrimination,' Downs said. 'Offensiveness alone can't be the grounds.'
Yet Spokesperson for Gov. Jim Doyle, Anne Lupardus, said the bill was crafted with the utmost precision and attention to detail, making sure SB 525 did not violate any constitutional rights. In a statement Thursday, Doyle said he will sign SB 525 when it reaches his desk.
'The bill was worked out very carefully to make sure that it is constitutional. These are reasonable restrictions to make sure that funerals aren't disrupted,' Lupardus said.
That funerals are such solemn and private events by nature has evoked strong emotions from supporters of the bill.
'People in the military are dying for the rights of those who are not in the military, and for someone to go and picket the survivors is really repulsive,' said President of the Senate, Alan Lasee, R-De Pere. 'If someone wants to go to court, well that's their deal.'
According to state Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, if the bill ends up in court, it may help set a precedent and facilitate determining guidelines in delicate situations like this one. He said SB 525 is severable, meaning that the unconstitutional portions of the bill can be removed if necessary without destroying the bill as a whole.
'I think it should be reviewed. I supported the bill in part because I would like the court to help draw the line,' Risser said. 'Courts are the only ones that can determine constitutionality.'
