Bill Keeps Westboro-style Protests 500 Feet from Military Funerals

State Sen. Lizbeth Benacquisto, R-Fort Myers, wants to make it illegal for protesters to get close to any military funeral in Florida.

Benacquisto filed a bill Thursday that would expand the state's existing law against protesting at military funerals by setting a 500-foot buffer between the funeral and those protesting.

Senate Bill 632 is targeted at groups such as Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., which has held provocative, anti-gay protests at military funerals.

Funerals are emotional times for families and friends to come together and mourn the passing of loved ones, Benacquisto stated in a release Friday. All too often, they are used for political purposes that distort the courage of the servicemen and women who protect this country. We need to respect this time and allow families to grieve.

Her bill is a companion to HB 31 that was initially filed in June by Rep. Pat Rooney, R-Palm Beach Gardens.

Both bills would make violating the distance requirement a misdemeanor.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 majority ruling, declared that the First Amendment protects members of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the ruling was a narrow decision that dealt strictly with Westbrooks picketing.

In his ruling, Roberts noted that protestors were not in violation of Maryland's 100-foot buffer zone for military funerals.

"Speech is powerful," Roberts wrote. "It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain.

"On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," he said. "That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

Justice Samuel Alito, in siding with the family that brought the suit against the church, rebuked the majority ruling.

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.

"In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like (the) petitioner."