A Grave Perspective On Free Speech

Master Heppler blogs below on SB156, which Governor Rounds has, apparently, just signed into law.  According to the Rapid City Journal article that Jason links to, the law

bans protests within 1,000 feet of a funeral, memorial service, procession or other ceremony one hour before and after the service.

You might suppose that this is another attempt by fascist Republicans to take free speech away from our homegrown Cindy Sheehans, but that is not quite the case.  The protests that triggered the legislation belong to a rabid, anti-gay church in Kansas.  I couldn't get the RCJ photo to load, but I found the one on the right, and these seem to be the same knuckleheads.  The RCJ says of its own photo:

Shirley Phelps-Roper and her son, Jonah, 8, protest outside Open Bible Christian Center during the funeral for National Guard soldier Paul Pillen of Keystone, who died in Kuwait on Oct. 17. They were among seven protesters from a Topeka, Kan., church that believes U.S. deaths in Iraq are America’s punishment for tolerating homosexuals. (Steve Miller, Journal file)

Of course, the despicable content of their signs does not justify restricting their free speech rights.  But that is not the question on which the constitutionality of this law will turn.  Someone at CCK blogged on this, and was under the impression that free speech rights are subject to no restrictions.  The blogger knew not what he was talking about. 

Free speech is subject to all sorts of restrictions.  It doesn't protect someone who threatens a public official, or participates in the planning of a bank robbery, for example.  Free speech is also subject to a class of "time, place, and manner" restrictions.  You can burn a flag in some places, but not in a national forest during a high fire alert.  You can protest in a public park during hours the park is open, but not after the park is closed for the night.  American Nazis (all 47 of them) can march down the streets of Skokie, Illinois, but not into a synagogue. 

The question is whether a funeral is a public forum for political expression.  I see no obvious reason why the South Dakota Legislature cannot designate a funeral as a time and place that is not a public forum.  So long as the law is content neutral, it would be up to the people holding the funeral what kind of expressions are within the decorum of the event.  Restrictions on time, place, and manner are essential to the protection of privacy.  I think this law is sound.