{
  "id": "R41717",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R41717",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 383967,
      "date": "2011-03-22",
      "retrieved": "2016-06-21T21:34:06.247819",
      "title": "Funeral Protests: Selected Federal Laws and Constitutional Issues",
      "summary": "The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC or Church) has been protesting military funerals for a number of years. The Church has gained national attention as a result. Its primary message is that God hates the United States and is punishing the country for its tolerance of homosexuality. The Church chooses to protest the funerals of fallen soldiers to make the point that in their opinion soldiers are dying as part of God\u2019s retribution for this country\u2019s sins. Though it began protesting military funerals, it has since branched out to funerals of fire fighters, police officers, and other public servants. It has protested events beyond funerals as well.\nThese protests have incited anger across the country. State and local regulations have been passed banning the protest of funerals within a certain distance of the services, creating so-called \u201cbuffer zones.\u201d The federal government passed similar bans on protests at military funerals in federally controlled cemeteries as well as wherever they might occur throughout the country. \nIndividuals whose loved ones\u2019 funerals have been protested by the Church have sued the Church as well. Recently, the Supreme Court decided a case involving whether the Church could be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion by the family of a soldier, Matthew Snyder, whose funeral the Church protested. The Supreme Court held that, at least in the case of Matthew Snyder\u2019s funeral, the speech of the WBC was fully protected by the First Amendment.\nThere are two lines of cases, those analyzing the constitutionality of buffer zones and those analyzing tort liability. They present distinct, but related and significant First Amendment questions. This report will discuss the Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision in Snyder vs. Phelps, which deals with the question of the WBC\u2019s tort liability. It will then analyze the constitutional issues facing federal laws that create funeral protest buffer zones. Finally, it will discuss some legislative options for amending the federal laws restricting funeral protests, including the recently introduced H.R. 961.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41717",
          "sha1": "384ab51c768ced7df3571b4a66ff527b0565bd79",
          "filename": "files/20110322_R41717_384ab51c768ced7df3571b4a66ff527b0565bd79.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41717",
          "sha1": "939587416145051f4c8af8d54d556d902c2f14f0",
          "filename": "files/20110322_R41717_939587416145051f4c8af8d54d556d902c2f14f0.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}