So Phelps and clan can protest at exactly 300 feet, allow­ing no space for counter-​​protesters to get between them and the funeral.

Exactly right. And that’s what Westboro plans to do.

within 300 feet of what?

The answer is in Title VI, Section 1388 of the Act:

§ 1388. Prohibition on disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the Armed Forces
(a) PROHIBITION.—For any funeral of a member or former member of the Armed Forces that is not located at a cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or part of Arlington National Cemetery, it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in an activity during the period beginning 120 minutes before and ending 120 minutes after such funeral, any part of which activity—
(1)(A) takes place within the boundaries of the location of such funeral or takes place within 300 feet of the point
of the intersection between—
(i) the boundary of the location of such funeral; and
(ii) a road, pathway, or other route of ingress to or egress from the location of such funeral; and
(B) includes any individual willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise or diversion—
(i) that is not part of such funeral and that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such funeral;
and
(ii) with the intent of disturbing the peace or good order of such funeral;
(2)(A) is within 500 feet of the boundary of the location of such funeral; and
(B) includes any individual—
(i) willfully and without proper authorization impeding or tending to impede the access to or egress from such location; and
(ii) with the intent to impede the access to or egress from such location; or
(3) is on or near the boundary of the residence, home, or domicile of any surviving member of the deceased person’s immediate family and includes any individual willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise or diversion—
(A) that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace of the persons located at such location; and
(B) with the intent of disturbing such peace.

Also, within 300 feet of what? The funeral procession, the road to the cemetery, the cemetery gates, the plot itself? Any of the mourners? Could you then set up “mourners” to stand guard 299 feet from eachother and create a larger bubble? Who determines who is a mourner and who is a protester? I’d RTFL, but I don’t speak “legislator,” and wouldn’t understand it.

I like how the Foo Fighters counter-protest the Westboro Baptist idiots… keepin it clean.

I actually passed by a Westboro protest five blocks from my home on Friday 7/27, but I was on my way to do laundry.  By the time I finished the laundry, got home and grabbed my camera, they were gone.  Darn the luck. I tried, anyway.

But protest and counter-protest is the American way.

As long as a law that restricts when or where applies to all speak­ers of all view­points, that law is Con­sti­tu­tion­ally valid. Correct?

Close. A law that restricts all speech, regardless of content, must show some compelling social interest that supports the restriction. That is, you can’t pass a law banning all protests within a particular government’s jurisdiction. That’s overbroad, and would not support an argument of compelling social interest. The law must be crafted in such a way as to minimize the restriction to the point where it just covers the compelling social interest, and no more.

Fur­ther, lim­its may even be placed on the con­tent, if there is an over­rid­ing social need to do so — which is the intent behind obscen­ity laws, and incite­ments to vio­lence, and child pornog­ra­phy. Again, correct?

Yes, and again it must be crafted in a way to minimize the restrictions as much as is practical.

It’s a GOOD thing! Because groups, as the Patriot Guard Riders M.C., joined by local motorcycle clubs, vets and ordinary people will station themselves BETWEEN the sad haters, exercising their OWN freedom of speech and assembly, and the object of their protest. Just about everywhere they go now.

Does one’s heart good.

So, Michael, the case you’re making (tell me if I have this right) is that the First Amendment phrase “freedom of speech” refers to the content of speech, not the time or place. Which means the only part that is protected is that people can say whatever they want, and any law that limits where or when they say it cannot constitutionally limit the content of what they say. As long as a law that restricts when or where applies to all speakers of all viewpoints, that law is Constitutionally valid. Correct?

Further, limits may even be placed on the content, if there is an overriding social need to do so — which is the intent behind obscenity laws, and incitements to violence, and child pornography. Again, correct?

Thanks for the clarifications.

First, the words of the Constitution don’t necessarily mean what you think they mean. For example, the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble …

Those words imply to a layperson that you can say whatever you want whenever you want without breaking the law. But that’s never been the legal meaning of “freedom of speech”. (And, as an aside for another day, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” similarly has a different legal meaning from the lay understanding as well.)

This is why we can have laws restricting speech, despite the lay interpretation of the words “freedom of speech”. We can be restricted by the government as to where and when we can make our public statements, provided that there is a compelling societal interest in restricting all speech of that mode, regardless of content. In this case, the compelling societal interest is in maintaining the peace for those attending funerals. It’s similar to the sorts of restrictions on protesting outside a person’s home at 3am. The key in this case is that the law cannot restrict the content of the speech. It’s the content issue that prevents laws against flag-burning from standing.

Snyder v. Phelps doesn’t apply as precedent in this case because Snyder was suing Phelps for defamation, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. In other words, he was attempting to use existing civil law. The Supreme Court said that the existing civil law did not provide for such liability. The Court said nothing about the constitutionality of a law that prohibited all protests of all sorts from within a reasonable distance of a funeral.

I can see a path for the Supreme Court to hold this law constitutional.

I do find the Westboro protesters to be reprehensible, but it is not that reprehensibility that leads me to agree with this law. Rather, it’s the societal benefit that arises from permitting people to attend a funeral in peace. I don’t care what the message is; I care about the disruption.