I know the Phleps decision is narrow, but does this mean so-called Free Speech Zones

[WCGreen]

are also protected by the same logic used to allow Phelps and his band of raving maniacs to harass people?

But now that they ruled in this way, why is religious speech given more freedom than political speech?

This is how Julie Hilden explained it on CNN...

To begin, an important component of First Amendment doctrine is the rule that "time, place, and manner" restrictions are generally permissible. How does this principle apply to the DNC protesters?

It suggests that police had some latitude to tell the protesters where and when they could protest -- just as a City has the latitude when giving out parade permits, to decide whether or not to give those who are applying for permission the exact parade route they are seeking.

Another important First Amendment rule is that you don't have a right to a "captive audience". Thus, the protesters did not necessarily have a right to be seated in the Convention Center itself -- nor did they have a right to push their message constantly on conventioneers who did not want to hear it.

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-04/justice/hilden.freespeech_1_protesters-captive-audience-first-amendment?_s=PM:LAW

And yet this ruling seems to say that Phelps has a right to a captive audience...

I'm an accountant, not a constitutional scholar, but this seems to me to be pretty cut and dried.

[MineralMan]

1. Actually, Phelps often finds his protests limited to a certain

area, usually a good distance from whatever he's protesting with his band of incestuous followers. Then, he finds himself blocked from view by those who oppose him. The response to Phelps and his disgusting horde has been very consistent recently. They aren't able to disrupt in most cases, and mourners are shielded from their ugliness.

[still_one]

3. That is good to hear /nt

[still_one]

2. That was my exact thought. I also have problems if these funerals were private ceremonies, not

public, what gives someone a right to disrupt a private ceremony?

[MineralMan]

4. Funerals held on private premises are almost always able to

exclude morons like Phelps from the property. The trespass laws make that possible. Even in public places, restrictions on Phelps often keep him distant from the actual event. Where that does not happen, locals generally show up to block mourners' view of Phelps and his ugliness. The response to Phelp's shenanigans has been better and better over time. He and his horde don't get to actually make much of a statement any longer.

[Bandit]

5. I believe the "Free Speech Zones" first came about during the Clinton Administration

They were created to protect people around Planned Parenthood or other facilities that provide abortion..Protesters had to stay a certain distance away. Smokers are also required in many places to stay a certain distance away from entrances to buildings..It was found to be Constitutional and then Bush* and his Cabal decided to use it for Political gatherings..IMO that really stretched the intent and should also go to court.

[ixion]

6. Free Speech Zones are BS, in my opinion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Hopefully it will be the death knell to free speech zones on and off campuses

Ours are a bad joke.