Backers of a state law struck down by a federal judge who said it would trample on free speech rights say they're hoping for a re-do.
The overturned law would have let victims and their families ask a judge to make offenders stop any behavior that is upsetting. Opponents called it baldly unconstitutional, and a U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner agreed, calling it the "embodiment of content-based regulation of speech."
The measure's main sponsor, Rep. Mike Vereb (R-Montgomery) said he would revise the proposal and push it again if the state attorney general's office doesn't appeal the ruling.
Jennifer Storm, the state Victim Advocate, said it's worth another try.
"There should be some way civilly, that that victim can go to the court and say, 'This is what's happening, I just want this conduct to cease,'" said Storm.
Steve Miskin, spokesman for the state House Republicans, said the crucial piece of the law is that it left judges with the power to stop an offender's speech or actions based on the mental anguish of a victim.
"In the end a judge would decide if it had merit," Miskin said. "Judges make those decisions all the time."
The law itself stemmed from a recorded speech given at a college commencement ceremony by a prison inmate serving a life sentence for killing a police officer. The officer's widow condemned the speech.
The proposal had unanimous support in the House last fall and passed easily in the Senate.
