Graphic By: Julie Brennan

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Among other things, this gives me the right to peacefully protest in public places so long as I do not disrupt anyone else. (We'll ignore, for purposes of this article, those marches which disrupt traffic.) This also gives anyone else that very right. That right was observed last semester when the library was shut down early on a Friday afternoon so various and sundry could drink and schmooze in McConnell Library. That right is observed every January in Washington, DC, by thousands of protesters.

That right exists for those of you offended by Christ on Campus, by my hair, by the Bush administration or pretty much anything else that pisses you off.

That right ends, as per Brandenberg v. Ohio, when you do this:

"[our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." (Bolding mine.)

Get pissed off all you want. Write angry comments, mass-email the entirety of the New River Valley. Write furious letters to the editor, boycott relevant entities, assemble in front of Heth, whatever. Bear in mind, also, that while I may not be there protesting with you, the moment anyone tries to abrogate your assembly rights, I'll start protesting. I may not agree with the initial reason for your protest, but I'm not so much a fan of people not honoring the first amendment.

There's a point, though, beyond which that amendment doesn't cover your hide. Note, again, from the above:

"... except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

In other words, you have to mean to bring about lawless action, and such lawless action has to be likely from what you're doing. This means two things: first, if someone who is not of sound mind and body takes your message of peace toward all, convolutes it and shoots President Kyle in the head, you're liable none. Second, if you're protesting the fair treatment of giant sentient squid, shouting "Death to all giant sentient squid!", you're in the clear. After all, how can you incite or produce action against a nonexistent entity?

A more difficult argument is this: there's a church group that goes around picketing the funerals of various people. Specifically, of late, this group has been picketing military funerals, saying the deaths of American military personnel is because of, among other things, an IED the group asserts was planted and detonated by the US government and meant to harm them. This group also asserts that US military deaths in Iraq occur because the US is ignoring the word of God (specifically as they believe it applies to homosexuals).

I think it's meant to incite anger and violence; this group has paid more than one bill with money won suing various people for violating their right to protest and right not to be punched in the face. Before becoming a preacher, the group's patriarch was a civil rights lawyer, and at least one of his children is also intimately familiar with constitutional law.

The question, though, is proving the group does this to incite violence. The evidence seems pretty clear to me; a Washington Post article provided the following insight:

"These people are not gainfully employed, so they're waiting for someone to do battle with them so they can go to court and win," said [Senator Anita] Bowser. "They want a big liability case to pursue. I don't think they actually give a diddly wink about the arguments they're making, but they're clever individuals trying to make a fast buck." Various states, bracing for this group, have begun considering having laws against protests at funerals. Current legislation being considered by one state would prohibit protests within 500 feet of a funeral, and violation of that prohibition would land the guilty party in jail for up to three years and responsible for paying up to a $10,000 fine.

I'm torn on this issue, personally. I absolutely think this group goes around trying to piss people off enough to try and land themselves a nice fat settlement. I also think the best way to counter them is by making them go bankrupt. They can't drive anywhere if they don't have money from lawsuits. They're like bullies; they want attention, plain and simple. If you listen to them, you tend to get pissed off by what they have to say. If you then try to restrict them in any way, you run the risk of being taken to court. That these folks have been at this game for a while tells me they're pretty good.

On the other hand, I like to think there's a special place in hell for people who hijack a funeral. Furthermore, as incensed as I get reading about the group that does this, imagine seeing such a group at a funeral. You're already grieving. Now you have someone coming and taking a giant dump on someone you knew who died.

The amateur constitutional lawyer in me thinks this smacks of passing (in the sense that it's meant to incite violence and likely to do the same) the Brandenberg test. The human in me hopes it passes that test. The American in me hopes this goes to the Supreme Court and that this group loses its case, and the liberal, gay hippy (or so at least one of you thinks) in me hopes the protest law doesn't pass but that Brandenberg is applied as I hope it will be.