Monday, March 8 – Free Speech Reversal

“Can I read it first?”

I was on my way to the Amendment Office with the advocates’ proposed changes to my legislation.

And I did read the bill with the staff lawyer who would draft the amendments before I gave my OK.

It is an advocate or lobbyist’s job to advance their cause, but it is ultimately the member’s decision to make as to what is sound public policy.

----

Last week, you may recall, I testified on a bill of mine that was prompted by a Supreme Court decision.

Next fall, the court will hear a case that may affect a law that I helped pass four years ago.

Rev. Fred Phipps and the Westboro Baptist Church are infamous for their anti-gay sloganeering. "Fag troops" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" were among the signs they displayed outside the funeral in Westminster, Md. of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The Marine’s father sued in federal court and won a $5 million defamation judgment. The Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether the church members’ right to free speech is violated by that damage award.

Our bill makes it a crime to knowingly obstruct another person’s access to a funeral, address speech to a person attending a funeral that is likely to produce an imminent breach of the peace, or picket within 100 feet of a funeral.

Rev. Phipps and his followers were not prosecuted for violating that law. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s decision next term will discuss the free speech principles that guided us in crafting our statute.

Friday, February 19 – Very few questions

There were lots of questions from my committee members for the bills heard before mine. They dealt with vehicular homicide and drag racing.

Ditto for the one afterwards, where the subject was traffic citations.

But very few for my two bills, where the issue was freedom of speech and the press.

Wealthy public figures are filing lawsuits in Great Britain because the burden of proof in libel actions favors the plaintiff. The cost of defending against these actions chills reporters and authors from writing about these people.

My legislation would prohibit Maryland courts from enforcing these judgments if the foreign jurisdiction does not provide at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as both the United States Constitution and the Maryland Constitution.

There were no questions from the chairman because he had been called out of the room. However, two media attorneys and I had discussed this legislation with him in his office before the bill hearings.

My second bill dealt with the Maryland law that protects journalists from revealing their confidential sources. It would extend this statute to include reporters for a college newspaper.

This is not a hypothetical problem. The District Attorney in Chicago issued a warrant for the notes of journalists at Northwestern University, where reporting by the Innocence Project has freed people from Death Row.

Before next week’s voting session, I’ll talk with my fellow committee members to see if they have any questions or concerns about these two bills.