Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!ACLU: ‘Worship Protection Act’ violates free speech rights
Thursday, August 23, 2012
A lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court seeks to prohibit state and local governments from enforcing a new Missouri law — the “House of Worship Protection Act” — that will make it a crime to disturb a building used for religious purposes by using profanity, rude or indecent behavior, or making noise.
The American Civil Liberties Union for Eastern Missouri filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in St. Louis. It claims the new law, which takes effect Tuesday, is unconstitutional because it infringes on free speech rights of groups like the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and the Voice of the Faithful of Kansas City, “whose peaceful protest activities would be illegal under the law.
Marry Me
Comments
GrumpyGus 9 months, 4 weeks ago
So the ACLU's position is that anyone can disrupt a religious service at any time so long as it is done "peacefully"? I guess unless it is a Mohammedan service.
asb 9 months, 4 weeks ago
The law says nothing about mosques, that's your bias. The law outlaws peaceful protest. That's the constitution's bias. The law's intention looks good, but would be so easily abused that it shouldn't be enforced, or even have been passed and signed.
Sequoia 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Like any government restriction on our God-given rights protected by the Constituion, any restrictions on free speech must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. They can't be so broad as to infringe on speech outside the compelling government interest. Certainly the government has an interest in protecting the peacefulness of a private religious service, but the law restricting protest can't be so broad as to ban speech that doesn't disrupt the service. I think that's the ACLU's position: the statute is too broad.
Gus, I would suggest you actually look and see what the ACLU's position is before you try to state what it is. I think you've got it wrong. Of course, if all you want to do is badmouth the ACLU...
As long as what you say FEELS true to you, it doesn't matter whether it really IS true, does it?
renaldo 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Sweet. Just like Russia.
What if you have Tourette's? Will you be arrested?
Paroquet 9 months, 4 weeks ago
"by using profanity, rude or indecent behavior, or making noise."
Anti-profanity laws have been struck-down wherever they've been attempted to be applied. What is at issue is the definition of "profanity, rude or indecent behavior, or making noise". It has nothing to do it applying to a place of worship unless it is preferential in its wording to promote, protect, or exclude one religion over another. The US. Con. Amendment guaranteeing equal protection notwithstanding. I personally find the rhetoric of some religions to be "profane". My definition of profanity would therefore clash with what has been passed. I would also find it rude were someone to interfere in any way with my own religious practices. Being present for the purpose of protest, for example, I would find rude.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID