It is still freedom of speech.
What the mourners need to do is like those citizens who came out in numbers to block the protesters from the funeral. Then slit their tires so they would have to walk home. That is the best deterrent. Eventually they can't afford the tires anymore.
No, don't slit tires.
Pump a tire half-full of tar. Pull the balancing weights from the wheels. On a cold day, fill tires on opposite corners with jello. Superglue the driver's door shut. Mix nitric acid in gasoline and thin oil and put it in the gas tank. Epoxy the steering rods so they can only turn one way. And if you do give in and slash tires, pop some of the lug nuts and epoxy them on.
Never do the same thing more than twice in a row.
Perhaps my KKK reference was a bit strong, but I fear that the Court is headed in that direction. The Court's decision on Citizens United gives unlimited power to corporations which might disenfranchise the general public forever.
Citizens United was a lose-lose situation, and the Court came down on the better side. I don't know where the article was, but I saw a legal analysis that showed how if the decision had gone the other way, it would have ended up with Congress being able to outlaw political speech by anyone at all, because the precedent with corporations could be applied to churches, student interest groups, unions, all the sorts of organizations (like the Sierra Club) that were affected by the ruling; no voluntary association of people, regardless of their purpose in joining together, could be silenced -- like all the gay rights organizations.
The problem is that Congress ever let corporations be defined as persons. The Court just made another decision that puts limitations on that and opens the way for redefining "person" as it applies to corporations to mean merely that they may be treated as individual entities -- Roberts explicitly stated that corporations have no right to privacy ( ! ).
But given the Court's language in
Citizens, even that might not be enough: it was noted that the language does not specify free speech by persons, just free speech. I find that ridiculous, but there it is. What's needed is a constitutional amendment specifying that for purposes of politics, "person" means an individual human being, someone who either is or may become a citizen, either a citizen or legal resident of the U.S., and that any and all rights which may apply to politics apply only to persons as so defined.
Write your Congresscritters to support such an amendment.
