Westboro counterprotestors who received tickets: 'We are tired of playing this game'

[TexasTowelie]

Members of Journey 4 Justice — a group formed to counterprotest the Westboro Baptist Church — want their day in Topeka Municipal Court.

Four members of the group were ticketed by Topeka police officers Sept. 12 for picketing during a religious event.

Topeka Municipal Code 9.45.140 states “focused picketing means standing or sitting or walking in a repeated manner past or around a house of worship, by one or more persons while carrying a banner, placard, or sign.”

Several of the Journey 4 Justice members were holding American flags during the counterprotest Sept. 11-12. Officers told the motorcyclists that the American flag is considered a “banner.”

Read more: http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2015-09-25/westboro-counterprotestors-who-received-tickets-we-are-tired-playing-game#comment-382006

[HooptieWagon]

1. Well, that'll get overturned.

I'd like to be in courtroom when Prosecuters is arguing the American Flag is just a banner. That'll make the teabaggers heads spin.

[dsc]

2. the police are correct

not calling the flag a banner would make the law not neutral in terms of content and thus unconstitutional.

[GeorgeGist]

3. that's nonsense ...

even if you are correct in gauging the mentality of the Roberts court: Where money is speech and corporations are people.

[Ms. Toad]

4. The bigger problem is that it seems to be exclusively picketing religious events

that is prohibited. That is definitely not content neutral - I can't imagine it will stand up in court.

[dsc]

6. you have a point

I didn't notice that in my first reading. I can't see that standing up to scrutiny.

[msongs]

5. but what if picketing is a sincerely held religious belief? nt

[Ms. Toad]

7. If the law is constitutional, and not directed at the suppression of specific beliefs

tough noogies.

For example, prohibition on the use of peyote is directed at general drug control - not sacramental use by Native Americans. So the Native Americans who use peyote for religious reasons lose, even though their use is part of a sincerely held religious belief.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1213

The problem here is that the law is almost certainly unconstitutional. Only churches are protected by the anti-picketing provisions, so the restriction on speech is not content neutral - I doubt the law itself would be upheld.

If I"m wrong about that, it doesn't matter whether the picketing is a sincerely held religious belief - because the restriction prohibits all picketing, not just religious picketing.

(For those paying close attention to the law - this case is obviously more complex, since it pits religious freedom against the right to free speech. The above is just to illustrate the principle that not all restrictions that hinder the practice of religion are unconstitutional).