HB 234-PICKETING AND PROTESTS AT FUNERALS  9:42:55 AM CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 234, "An Act relating to picketing or protests at a funeral." He asked for a motion to bring the bill before the committee. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI motioned to bring HB 234 before the committee. 9:43:24 AM KACI SHROEDER, staff to Representative Bill Thomas Jr., sponsor of HB 234, introduced HB 234 on behalf of the sponsor. She stated that in the last several years it has become popular to use funerals as a means of expressing political speech. The sponsor believes it is necessary to balance that right with the right of a family to grieve without disruption. This will bring Alaska in line with forty six states that have adopted similar legislation by establishing a 150-foot buffer zone around a funeral service. A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if they knowingly picket with reckless disregard that it occurs inside a cemetery, church or other facility or within 150 feet of the outer boundary of that facility. In addition, the picketing cannot occur an hour before, during, or after the funeral. Picketing means an act that actually disrupts or disturbs the funeral. 9:44:43 AM JEFFREY MITTMAN, Director, ACLU of Alaska, said he was testifying on HB 234 to highlight its constitutional issues. He noted that he submitted written testimony. He said the first concern is that the current draft targets speech that is "directed towards a funeral," which is not content neutral. He suggested revising the phrase to say "conduct that interferes with a funeral." This would cover noise that is so loud it disrupts the occasion and conduct that is so close by that it interferes with ingress and egress. He suggested crafting the bill more narrowly to outlaw the worst conduct. 9:46:39 AM CHAIR FRENCH asked if under his proposal, mourners would be able to hear the voices of the protesters. MR. MITTMAN replied they would potentially be exposed to fleeting noise that was not excessively loud when entering and leaving. That would probably be permissible as the courts give more leeway to protecting speech in the public sphere. 9:47:58 AM CHAIR FRENCH asked if mourners at a graveside would be able to hear the voices of the protesters while the funeral service was being conducted. MR. MITTMAN said disrupting a graveside service would be covered because the conduct - the level of noise - was interfering. That would be a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. 9:48:51 AM CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and delivered a short speech on the First Amendment. He said despite the black and white language in the constitution, most people realize they have to make some accommodation in the world. Holding someone responsible for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is an example of such an accommodation; most people recognize that as wrong. He opined that HB 234 makes a very fair accommodation in the world. SENATOR COGHILL asked if the 150-foot buffer was defensible. MS. SCHROEDER said it falls within the boundary of what has been held constitutional in other states, and would allow the picketers to deliver their message. CHAIR FRENCH reviewed the March 10, 2011 memo from Legislative Legal that points out that Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court has, where a law was content neutral, allowed time, place, and manner restrictions and regulation of public speech. The memo also points out that a state court rejected a 300-foot buffer zone for picketing and approved a 36-foot buffer zone. 9:52:55 AM SENATOR COGHILL noted that the bill amends the disorderly conduct statute, and asked if the action was the content. CHAIR FRENCH replied the bill says picketing is content neutral. SENATOR COGHILL asked if it wouldn't fall out to the disorderly part of the conduct rather than the picketing specifically. CHAIR FRENCH opined that the best parallel in this statute is paragraph (5) on page 2, lines 22-23. It's very close to the fighting words doctrine, which is saying hateful words to someone's face and provoking a fight. 9:54:25 AM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report the Senate CS for HB 234, version T, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection SCS HB 234(STA) moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.