To: Kathryn Pieplow
We use a conventional memo heading for
From: Abigail Carson
legal memos – with the addition of our
client’s name.
Date: October 16, 2013
Re: Blackburn v. Norris
Client: Patriot Guard Riders
This first paragraph does two things:
tells the senior partner who the client is,
and tells us how the appeal came about.
So, what happened at the trial level, and
who are the parties?
Facts
The Patriot Guard Riders (PGR), a group of volunteer motorcyclists dedicated
to sheltering funerals from the protesters of Westboro Baptist Church, have brought
GROUP YOUR INFORMATION. We need to know this
about the PGR, but not just yet. I’d move it to the second
this case to our firm on appeal. The trial court ruled in favor of the PGR and the
paragraph which gives basic information about the client.
family of Captain Joseph Peters. In this case, Bobby Blackburn of Westboro Baptist
Church sued Charles Norris, father of Army Captain Joseph Peters’s wife, Dana, as well as
Square State and the PGR for civil damages. Blackburn claimed that he had been assaulted by
Norris and the PGR, on May 7, 2012 at Captain Joseph Peters’s funeral, that his constitutional
CITATION. How do we know this? Is this
right to free speech was violated and alleged that Square State’s “Peaceful Funeral” Act is
from the PGR website, or was there
unconstitutional. Norris countersued, alleging Blackburn had violated his right to privacy and
testimony to this effect during trial?
intentionally inflicted emotional stress on his grieving family. The court ruled in Norris’s favor
Think about providing a source from the
record for every fact or sentence in your
and awarded the family $2.2 million, Blackburn is now appealing that decision.
fact section – this citation could be
The PGR is a group of about 137,000 volunteers dedicated to honoring fallen heroes,
(Holloway). You don’t need a page
family members and communities by shielding the grieving family and funeral guests from any
number from the trial transcript because
you don’t have the actual trial transcripts.
interruptions made by protesters such as the Westboro Baptist Church. According to the
testimony of Richard Holloway, a ride Captain for the Square State’s PGR, the PGR must be
invited to attend the funeral by a close family friend; for this funeral Holloway was contacted by
CITING USING SIGNALS. Another way to
either Dana Peters or Charles Norris as soon as the family was notified that the Westboro Baptist
cite, is to use introductory signals like
Church was going to protest the funeral. Once the family reached out to the PGR, Holloway
the author does in the next sentence (see
highlighting).
notified law enforcement that they would be attending Captain Peters’s funeral. Once they arrived
at the funeral of Captain Joseph Peters, scheduled for 2:30 PM, about 80 PGR members
positioned themselves on the west side of Cemetery Road, to physically block the mourners from
the protesters. Cemetery Road, a private two lane road, with no sidewalks that is about 12 ft wide,
1
is the only access to the cemetery. There is a 30 foot drainage ditch and shoulder between the
cemetery fence and the road. In order to shield the mourners, the PGR stood shoulder to shoulder
against the fence holding American flags. Thomas McGill, who lives across the street from Fort
Inter National Cemetery, about 20 ft back from Cemetery Road, testified that the people on the
west side of Cemetery Road stood in a solid line against the fence and were very nice and
respectful.
According to the testimony of Dana Peters, throughout the funeral, protesters were singing
the Marine Corps anthem with offensive Westboro Baptist Church lyrics; carrying distressing
signs with messages like “God Blew Up the Troops,” “FAG troops,” “Thank God for IEDs,” and
“Pray for More Dead Soldiers,” Dana also saw someone blow his nose with and stand on the
American flag. Dana did note that upon entrance to the funeral she was very upset and not
thinking clearly.
According to Thomas McGill’s testimony, the protesters were so unruly that, he did not
feel he could leave his home because the only access to his home was on Cemetery Road. McGill
testified that he finally called the sheriff around 2 PM because other than those peaceful protesters
on the west side of Cemetery Road, later identified as the PGR, there were hundreds of people
standing in the streets yelling obscene things to one another. Not only was the language being
used foul, people were making their way onto his lawn and ignored or shouted at him when he
tried to get them off of his property.
The previous case came about after altercations between Blackburn and Norris as well as
Blackburn and Holloway. Dana testified that she and her parents, Lila and Charles Norris, and
her two children, 8-year-old Sydney and 5-year-old Bryan, got into the first limousine to try to
exit the cemetery. According to Dana, as they were driving out of the gates of the cemetery onto
Cemetery Road, Blackburn pushed his way through to the limousine and banged his sign, “Your
Soldier is in Hell,” on the hood of the car preventing the limousine from leaving. Dana recalls
Charles Norris getting out of his car and shoving Blackburn out of the way so that their family
could leave, Blackburn then hit Norris with his sign and Norris threw a right hook that caused
Blackburn to fall to the ground. After about a minute, Blackburn, bleeding, stood up and came at
the car again. According to Holloway’s testimony, he witnessed some “pushing and shoving”
2
This paragraph recounts events from two
different sources. The events might be
more easily understood if parenthetical
citations were used instead of signals.
between Blackburn and Norris from where he was standing at the west side of Cemetery Road, so
he moved in and tried to restrain Blackburn by eventually sitting on him to hold him down so the
limousine could leave. Dana also testified that Holloway came over and grabbed Blackburn,
twisting his arm behind his back and holding him out of the way so that her family could exit the
funeral. As she left, she saw the military police arriving. Dana testified that Sydney began
screaming when Blackburn attacked the limousine and still has nightmares about the incident.
Holloway testified that the military police arrived not long after the altercation and the Charlotte
County Sheriff arrived about 10 minutes later. Both Holloway and Blackburn were turned over to
the county sheriff and charged with violating Square State’s “Peaceful Funeral” Act, the jury
found Blackburn guilty but did not convict Holloway, Blackburn is appealing his charge as
unconstitutional.
FULL INTRODUCTIONS THE FIRST TIME. We “know” that
the author is referring to the First Amendment to the US
Constitution, but she doesn’t say that. Think about taking as
Discussion
much of the memo
as possible
text or rule
argument
policy
argument
The First Amendment
The First Amendment protects any person’s right to freedom of speech. The amendment
states: “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech.”
Speech focused on matters of public concern is most protected by the First Amendment in
relation to matters of “private concern that are subject to a ‘less rigorous’ First Amendment
standard” (Ruane, 2). Speech is seen as relating to public concern if it relates to “any matter of
political, social or other concern to the community” (Ruane, 2). The Westboro Baptist Church’s
statements are considered public concern because they address matters that are of interest to the
public such as homosexuality in the military, and their opinion of the Catholic faith (Wells, 76).
When analyzing speech, the Court looks at the content, form and context of the speech especially
emphasizing the fact that laws restricting speech must be content neutral (Ruane, 2). This content
neutrality forbids the Court from punishing an offender based on the fact that others found their
speech offensive unless the “speech contains objective indica of harm, such as speech
3
Legal writing is formulaic in a couple of
ways. 1) give the principle and then discuss
it. Here, we have the relevant text from the
First Amendment? That amendment states
several legal concepts, so quote only the
relevant text. 2) we discuss authorities in
the order of most persuasive to least
persuasive. Here, there is no authority
higher than the Constitution, so it comes
first (yellow highlight). Then we can talk
about cases from other courts and outside
experts like Ruane (green highlight).
GREEN HIGHLIGHT. This is definitely
procedure. It probably doesn’t belong in
a paragraph of facts.
accompanied by physical or aural invasions, threats or violence” (Wells, 72). Laws that restrict
speech must be content neutral or else unpopular worldviews would be censored, prohibiting the
communicator from speaking their public opinion (Wells, 75).
Time, Place and Manner Restrictions: The Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act
One way to regulate the First Amendment is through looking at the time, place and
precedent
argument
manner of the speech. According to Legislative Attorney, Kathleen Ann Ruane, in order to be
constitutional there are four criteria a time place and manner restriction must meet. The “time
place manner on speech restriction must 1) be content neutral, 2) serve a significant government
interest, 3) be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, 4) leave open ample alternative channels
for communication of the information” (Ruane, 4).
Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act (RAFHA), a federal legislation enacted by
text or rule Congress on May 29, 2006 to protect against group picketing, addresses time and place
argument –
restrictions (Rutledge, 336). It is intended to “preserve the sanctity of military funerals at all 122
what
RAFHA says national cemeteries and protect the privacy of mourning families as they bury loved ones who
died for their country” (Bland, 529). The Act “makes no mention of the content or subject matter
of the demonstrations,” thus it is content neutral (Bland, 535). RAFHA was enacted to address the
government interest in protecting funeral goers and the dignity of the funeral by restricting the
place of the protest (Rutledge, 338). Although the Act was passed in response to the actions of a
particular group, it may still been seen as content neutral, like the decision of the Supreme Court
during Frisby v. Schultz when similar “anti-picketing ordinances were enacted” and held as
constitutional (Bland, 536). The government interest in protecting privacy in Frisby v. Schultz
may allow for the government to protect “grieving families as unwilling listeners” to guard their
right to privacy with a time restriction for demonstrations one hour before, during and one hour
after the funeral, as restricted by RAFHA (Bland, 538). This time would likely be seen as
narrowly tailored enough to “allow for a respectful funeral service and a peaceful funeral
procession as the attendees make their way to and from the cemetery grounds,” therefore it would
pass as constitutional (Bland, 538). This government interest is similar to Square State’s
“Peaceful Funeral” Act, which aims to “protect the privacy of mourners during the funeral and
4
This is a nice signal. I now know that
Ruane is an attorney specializing in
legislation (so she’s concerned with how
laws might conflict with the Constitution)
and I find that credible. BUT …this is a
test the Supreme Court articulated, so
Carson should be citing Ward v. Rock
Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989).
This is a really important test with four
elements that must be proven/discussed.
It might be more effective to make a list
here rather than hiding the elements in a
long sentence. These four elements also
frame the argument in this section, so the
author might use subheadings – or at the
very least give each element its own
paragraph.
These sentences are a secondary source
telling us what the primary source (the
law itself) says. Whenever possible in
legal writing, use the primary text itself.
Remember, the purpose of government is
to provide rules to protect its people – in
other words, a government interest is the
same as a public policy.
text or rule
argument –
what
Square
State says
policy
argument –
what
experts say
precedent
argument –
what
happened
in other
cases
preserve a funeral-site atmosphere that enhances the grieving process” (Square State). Square
State’s statute holds that “funeral picketing disrupts the grieving process” and “intentionally
inflicts severe emotional distress on the mourners” (Square State). The “Peaceful Funeral” Act
also finds that “full opportunity exists under the terms and provisions…for the exercise of
freedom of speech and other constitutional rights other than at and during the funeral“ (Square
State). RAFHA can be looked at as protecting Square State’s “Peaceful Funeral” Act by giving a
narrowly tailored period where demonstrations may occur before and after a funeral.
The Act originally amended titles 18 and 38 of the United States Code (USC), and
provided a 500 ft restriction for demonstrations one hour before, during and one hour following
the funeral service (Bland, 529). This was suggested to be unconstitutional because the distance
was too large considering national cemeteries are often located in residential neighborhoods
which would likely lead to pickets extending to private residences, thus it was amended that 150
ft was narrow enough to pass a constitutional test (Bland, 529). This 150 ft also applies to any
demonstrations that disturb the peace by creating noise. RAFHA also extends this mandatory 150
ft to 300 ft if the protesters are blocking the exit (Rutledge, 339). The Supreme Court has also
noted “’men have a right to as free a passage without obstruction as the streets afford, consistent
with the rights of others to enjoy the same privacy’” (Ruane, 11).
However, based on previous case laws, these buffer zones may be deemed
unconstitutional. Since not all families hold funerals at the same church or funeral home, the 150
ft buffer zone applied to a road, pathway or other route may be called a floating buffer zone since
the route to and from the cemetery is not constant and therefore may be found unconstitutional
(Bland, 539). In Schneck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, the 15 ft floating buffer
zone was found too restricting since the zone moved as the person or vehicle moved, yet an 8 ft
floating buffer zone as used in Hill v. Colorado was found constitutional because it allowed
protesters to demonstrate “views from a normal conversational distance” (Bland, 539). However,
RAFHA may be allowed a larger floating buffer zone since the protesters are not necessarily
trying to speak directly with the family members, but rather trying to spread their message to the
public. Thus, it may be argued that demonstrators do not need a “normal conversational distance”
along the route to and from the cemetery (Bland, 539). Yet, the 150 ft floating buffer zone given
5
Narrative
argument –
what the
facts say
policy
argument –
what an
expert says
by RAFHA may be seen as too restricting on speech since it is much larger than the 15 ft floating
buffer zone applied in Schneck (Bland, 540).
Bland also suggests a more narrowly tailored fixed buffer zone for demonstration
distances that block the exit to and from the cemetery based on previous case laws. During
Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, a 300 ft buffer zone was found to violate the First
Amendment, while a 100 ft buffer zone like the one applied in Bursen v. Freeman and Hill v.
Colorado was found “narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest” (Bland, 541).
Thus, Bland suggests that to be constitutional, a demonstration buffer zone should be “less than
300 feet but as much as 100 feet” when blocking the entrance and exit from the cemetery (Bland,
540).
As previously stated, to be considered constitutional, there must be alternate channels for
communication open for the protesters to convey their message. It must be noted that the
relatively small group, WBC, has a website, www.godhatesfags.com, which has over “5.4 million
hits on its homepage and a Google search of WBC brings up more than 390,000 hits,” thus they
are clearly still getting their information across to a large amount of people (Bland, 537).
Alternate channels are also addressed in
the sentence highlighted in pink on the
previous page … grouping the argument
would be helpful here.
Remember that headings are extra. They do not mean you can
tradition
argument –
common law
= what has
traditionally
been done
precedent
argument
leave contextual information out of the text itself.
Invasion of Privacy, the Right to Mourn and the Right to Worship
Christina Wells of the University of Missouri, notes several important common law
elements. These three elements are “1) an unauthorized intrusion, 2) into a secluded space or These common law principles would be
terrific if the author had told us they
one’s private affairs, 3) that is highly offensive to a reasonable person” (Wells, 80). These
relate to the right to privacy.
elements “protect against punishment of speech based on its emotional impact by recognizing
only physical, spatial or aural intrusions into a secluded area” (Wells, 81). According to Rutledge
in the Maryland Law Review, the right to mourn could be seen as a continuation of the greater
privacy right (Rutledge, 316). This is because the right to mourn stems from a government
interest to respect the privacy of funeral attendees during their grieving process (Rutledge, 315).
Although, as Justice Charles explained there must be a balance between the right “to be let alone”
and “the right of others to communicate” (Rutledge, 319).
The Court decided in Frisby v. Schultz that protecting privacy is most important in the
home (Wells, 77). The Court has also recognized protecting the privacy of patients in hospitals
6
and medical facilities because of the vulnerability of the patients residing in those facilities
(Trachy, 894). Funeral attendees are also particularly vulnerable and see funerals as a time to
“satisfy some essential psychological, religious and social need” (Rutledge, 320). Part of this
religious need reflects the government interest of the right to worship as seen in St David’s
Episcopal Church v. Westboro Baptist Church Inc., when The Kansas Court of Appeals
acknowledged the right to worship as an important government interest (Rutledge, 327). To be
considered an invasion of privacy of a religious ceremony, as seen in Snyder v. Phelps, the
picketing must noticeably interfere with the funeral attendees’ ceremony (Trachy, 893).
text arg if
using a
dictionary or
precedent
argument if
using a
court’s
opinion
Captive Audience
The captive audience doctrine allows that “an individual in public can claim an invasion
of privacy only when he or she encounters a physical or aural intrusion and cannot avoid that
intrusion by moving or looking away” (Wells, 78). The Court has allowed regulation of speech
utilizing the captive audience doctrine if the speech has “unreasonably invaded the privacy
interests of the listeners” (Wells, 77). The home is the location most protected by this doctrine
because the home is “where privacy protection is at its apex” (Wells, 77). As decided in Frisby v.
Schultz, as long as one home is not targeted by protesters, picketing in a neighborhood is
acceptable (Wells, 78). During Hill v. Colorado the Court also recognized “an unwilling listener’s
’right to be let alone’” which “has special force in the home and immediate surroundings but may
also be applied in ‘confrontational settings’” (Ruane, 6). As stated in the above discussion of
invasion of privacy, previous cases have established other confrontational settings, such as
hospitals and medical facilities due to the vulnerability of the patients. It may be argued that those
experiencing immediate loss are in just as vulnerable a state as those patients residing in a
hospital or medical facility, especially when attending a funeral since their vulnerability is often
considered more intense (Strasser, 284). These settings have been recognized by the Court to
protect the “interests of unwilling listeners in situations where the degree of captivity makes it
impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid exposure” (Trachy, 895).
7
PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY. Remember
that court opinions are primary sources,
and are more persuasive than secondary
commentators. Look for definitions of
terms in case law or in legal dictionaries.
text
argument if
using a
dictionary
~ but ~
precedent
argument if
using a
court’s
opinion
Precedent
argument
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
To argue intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), “a plaintiff must demonstrate
that the defendants, intentionally or recklessly, engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that
caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress” (Strasser, 284). On the WBC website, they
state their belief that “funerals are the perfect time to spread their message because they are events
at which people consider their own mortality” (Rutledge, 312). However, there have been
numerous cases suggesting a government interest in protecting individuals from additional
emotional distress during the mourning process (Rutledge, 315). This is because a number of
cases have recognized that when experiencing loss individuals are in a vulnerable state, and this
vulnerability may be intensified when at a funeral (Strasser, 284). Due to this heightened
vulnerability, behavior may be classified as outrageous under the “special circumstances
surrounding the death of a loved one” (Strasser, 285). With that being said, it is often difficult to
prove the severity of the defendant’s conduct because offense is subjective as well as contentbased. When one is offended, it is because worldviews, as well as “cultural norms, personal
experiences and beliefs” between the plaintiff and the defendant differ (Wells, 72). If the severity
of the defendant’s conduct is decided, “the plaintiff must show that it was the defendant’s action,
rather than something else that caused the harm” (Strasser, 285).
Recommendations
We are representing the Patriot Guard Riders (PGR) in this case. Our strongest argument
will be utilizing the captive audience doctrine to prove that the Peters family was unable to avoid
the unreasonable intrusion of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). Blackburn repeatedly banged
the “Your Soldier is in Hell” sign against the hood of the family’s limousine causing Dana
Peters’s daughter Sydney to scream and have recurrent nightmares about the incident. The Peters
family could not simply avert their eyes to avoid the unwanted message unless Blackburn was
physically removed from the premises. In addition, given the vulnerability of the family, and the
confrontational setting of a funeral, it makes it further impractical for the family to avoid the
8
As before, this section
would be stronger if Carson
had used the cases
themselves to support her
argument and not what an
expert says the cases say.
I’ll highlight our strongest and weakest
arguments, and the other side’s
arguments to help demonstrate how this
section should be formatted. As you can
see from the arrangement of the colors,
it’s very much an alternating discussion.
Think of the recommendation section as
a game plan. If we do X, they will do Y,
and we can counter with Z.
WBC message. Since Dana heard the offensive WBC lyrics and saw their signs at the funeral, it
may be argued that she could not avoid the message the WBC were trying to publicize; since a
funeral is a one time event, she could not simply have had the service on another day.
The WBC will argue that their First Amendment Right allows them to speak their message
because it is of public concern. They believe that funerals are their ideal setting for spreading their
beliefs, and that their message must not be restricted. However, the free speech clause of the First
Amendment may be limited in a content-neutral way based on time place and manner restrictions.
We can argue, based on RAFHA, that the WBC violated time and place restrictions at
Captain Joseph Peters’s funeral. The WBC protested within the one hour window before and
after a funeral that is protected by the Act. Captain Peters was buried at 2:30 PM, but Thomas
McGill testified that he called the sheriff at 2 PM when the crowd was particularly rowdy. That
shows that the protesters were picketing within thirty minutes of the funeral, which is a violation
of RAFHA. Since the protesters were so unruly, they were also violating Square State’s
“Peaceful Funeral” Act.
The WBC also violated the 150 ft buffer zone of a road, pathway or other route to and
from the cemetery allotted by RAFHA. However, they will argue that this is unconstitutional
because it is too large of a floating buffer zone for them to communicate their message, thus
infringing on their First Amendment rights. We can counter this with the fact that since they are
not trying to directly reach the family, they do not need a normal conversational distance. They
will likely argue by utilizing the case law found in Frisby v. Schultz that picketing in a
neighborhood is permitted which makes the 150 ft buffer zone too restricting since Cemetery
Road is the only road leading to the cemetery where they want to spread their message. However,
they do have alternate means for communicating their message such as their website
www.godhatesfags.com.
We may also argue that the WBC violated the 300 ft buffer zone for demonstrations
blocking the entrance or exit from the cemetery provided by RAFHA. The WBC will most likely
argue that this is too far to be constitutional given previous case law found in Madsen v. Women’s
Health Center. However, utilizing the under 300 ft but as much as 100 ft constitutional distance
provided by Rebecca Bland in the University of Missouri-Kansas City School Law Review, in
9
The WBC’s First Amendment argument is
a loser, but it has to be made, and made
first in order to build a foundation for
other more persuasive arguments.
This is a narrative argument, based on
the facts in this case. In order to make
it, be sure that every fact you use to
support your argument was previously
written into the Fact section.
supporting previous case laws, it can still be said that the WBC violated the appropriate distance
for demonstrations. Since we know the WBC were standing in the street, we can gauge the
distance they were from the ceremony and judge if it violates this constitutional buffer zone.
Cemetery Road is about 12 ft wide with no sidewalks and has a 30 ft wide drainage ditch and
shoulder between the cemetery fence and road. That means that the WBC were within 42 ft of the
cemetery which is much closer than the 100 ft that would be suggested as constitutional based on
previous case laws. Even when they were on William McGill’s property, they were about 72 ft
from the cemetery given that his property is about 20 ft back from Cemetery Road. Their
proximity to the cemetery is a violation of RAFHA and thus a place violation of the First
Amendment. Blackburn also further violated this distance when he broke through the line of PGR
members standing around the fence, and blocked the family’s limousine from leaving the
cemetery. RAFHA protects the right of funeral attendees to peacefully enter and exit the service
and Blackburn infringed on the family’s ability to do so which is why Holloway got involved in
order to remove Blackburn from the limousine.
Given the WBC’s violations of RAFHA, and the captive audience doctrine, we may also
argue that the WBC violated the Peters family’s right to privacy and therefore their right to mourn
and right to worship. This would be a slightly weaker argument on our behalf given the limited
case laws supporting these rights. We would have to argue that the funeral should be provided the
same privacy rights as the home or as medical or hospital settings given the vulnerability of the
family attending the funeral service. The WBC may argue that the PGR were also invading the
privacy of the funeral, however, given the criteria of an invasion of privacy claim, the PGR would
not be seen as violating this right given that they were personally invited by the family to
maintain the dignity of the funeral, whereas the WBC were not.
Our weakest claim will be intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) given the
subjectivity of emotions. The WBC’s message, regardless of how offensive, is protected by the
First Amendment given the fact that it regards matters of public concern, thus they have a right to
communicate their beliefs. We would have to pose that the WBC’s actions were outrageous, like
when Blackburn hit his sign on the hood of the limousine causing 8-year-old Sydney to scream
and have nightmares. We would also need to convince the Court that given the vulnerability of
10
the Peters family, Blackburn’s conduct should certainly be seen as outrageous. Since we are
referencing an action, rather than the content of the message, we may be able to persuade the
Court that Blackburn’s conduct was extreme. Even after that, however, we would have to show
there was nothing else that could have caused the family’s additional emotional distress. Proving
the family’s emotional distress was purely from the WBC’s actions may prove difficult given the
fact that they were already very emotional given the death of their family member and Dana
testified she was not thinking clearly due to her emotions.
Considering the captive audience doctrine, as well as time and place restrictions on the
First Amendment, invasion of privacy and IIED we can make a compelling argument against the
WBC. Although the WBC are going to continuously argue their First Amendment rights, as long
as we make no reference to the content of their message we should be able to win this case based
on their conduct.
Works Cited
Bland, Rebecca. "THE RESPECT FOR AMERICA'S FALLEN HEROES ACT: CONFLICTING
INTERESTS RAISE HELL WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT." The University of MissouriKansas City School Law Review (2007): 523-43. HeinOnline. Web.
Rutledge, Njeri Mathis. "A TIME TO MOURN: BALANCING THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH
AGAINST THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY IN FUNERAL PICKETING." Maryland Law Review
67.2 (2008): 295-422. Social Science Research Network. 17 Mar. 2008. Web.
Strasser, Mark. "Funeral Protests, Privacy, and the Constitution: What Is Next After Phelps?"
American University Law Review 61.2 (2011): 279-326. American University Law Review.
Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews. Web.
<http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol61/iss2/5>.
11
Trachy, Lisa. "SNYDER V. PHELPS: THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH VERSUS FUNERAL
SANCTITY SHOWDOWN IN THE SUPREME COURT." Albany Government Law Review 4
(2010): 888-96. Albany Government Law Review. Albany Law School, 2011. Web.
<http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/Articles/Vol04_4/4.4.888-Trachy.pdf>.
United States. Cong. Members and Committees of Congress. Funeral Protests: Selected Federal
Laws and Constitutional Laws. By Kathleen Ann Ruane. Cong. Rept. 7-5700. Congressional
Research Service, 2011. Web. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41717.pdf>.
Wells, Christina. "Regulating Offensiveness: Synder v Phelps, Emotion, and the First
Amendment." California Law Review Circuit 1 (2010): 71-86. Social Sciences Research Network
Electronic Paper Collection. Web.
12