The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution bars the government from preventing abortions. The Constitution also bans most infrigements on free speech and assembly, and laws that prevent the government from stopping abortions (of most types) don’t prevent people from interfering by yelling and waving signs, as offensive as it may be to the people being yelled at. There are two groups of people with rights involved in abortion protests.
There’s a whole body of law on what you can and can’t do in terms of protesting abortion. It’s complicated and varies from state to state, and federally. I only had a vague memory that the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to keep anti-abortion protesters a set distance away from clinics, but actually, they said some kinds of buffer zones are okay and some aren’t.
Sorry in advance that this response is a little disjointed, I cant seem to get my thoughts in the proper order.
Its already been pointed out but who said abortion rallies and union strikes were the only kind of picketing that takes place across this country? What about all the shop owners who picket the construction of a wal-mart or all the environmentalists who picket the construction of a nuclear power plant? Are their rights more important than pro-life wingnuts? I would argue no.
Did I ever say they should give up? If I did, then I wasn’t clear. I am under the impression that I only stated that someone else has the right to shout up and down about how they disagree with the practice, no matter how legal it is. And if they can be swayed on their conviction that what you are doing is the right thing or what they want to do, then maybe their decision would change.
If there is physical action (throwing paint or eggs, or whatever) that is not picketing or free speech. That is assault, its a crime which can happen during protests, but does not make it any less illegal.
Seriously, after going through that you would wish it on someone else, that’s as screwed up as the people doing it in the first place.
A group of people yelling bitch, whore, murderer at a single person, is not picketing. See also: the the right of petition and assembly does not permit lynch mobs or clan meetings.
The situation which you describe is clearly harassment (they moved from protesting to verbal assault; the next logical step is eggs followed by suicide bombs right?), and it just happens that they were picketing as well as being douchebags. It is however one of those situations that will most likely never be enforced. I’ve never understood these tactics since they have no idea why a person is going inside a gynecologist office or a planned parenthood, they could be asking for directions to the nearest bible study for all those people know. These people assumed that since they were protesting that their speech was protected, in all likelyhood they were wrong.
Sorry, but if someone wants to break the law (assault or speeding) while doing something else that is completely legal (picketing or driving). That doesn’t mean that the right to do the legal thing should be revoked for the rest of us, and unfortunately it doesn’t mean that people will stop breaking the law.
And one final thing for the US citizens out there, the constitution only explicitly protects the right to petition and assembly against the government itself and leaves the courts to decide whether or not a particular group of individuals is truly exercising their right to free speech, or just doing something illegal (which I think is okay).
It probably has more to do with the anti-abortion movement being so thuggish. When, say, the gay rights movement gets a reputation for assassinating people, it’ll be just as reasonable to consider them scary.
It is exactly that for most picketing IMHO, using hate against hate, which just produces more hate and doesn’t solve anything, but just makes things worse as hate has been added to the world, even if the picketing ‘succeeds’ in bringing down the ‘picketee’.
That expression of hate stays with both parties and enpowers them with hate.
I don’t agree with either assumption. Tackling the second assumption first, I don’t grasp how anyone can believe that “deciding right and wrong is up to legislation and court rulings”. Surely a great deal of legislation currently existing incorrectly identifies things as wrong, such as demanding jail time for marijuana and making it illegal to arrange flowers without a license. Further, there are a great many things which are wrong but legal. Hence the idea one should simply let right and wrong be decided by court rulings and legislation doesn’t stand up to reality. As Martin Luther King, Jr., said:
As for the assumption that non-direct protest is just as effective as picketing, that’s wrong as well. Direct action achieves what non-direct action can’t because direction action is direct. It cannot be ignored or brushed aside by the target. Protesting to the legislature, hiring lobbyists, and hiring lawyers are less effective because they government often ignores the demands of civilians. Spreading pamphlets and information fails to give the target a compelling reason to care. The same is true for a website. Here’s King again:
The bottom line is that there’s no written or unwritten law saying that people should never experience discomfort, intimidation, or fear. Nor would such a law be logically possible even if it was written. After all, suppose I felt uncomfortable, afraid, or intimidated by a law that curtailed my right to picket.
Well…yeah? That’s precisely what a restraining order is.
How is picketing dealing with someone face-to-face? Going back to my example of the two kids, where one is following the other around, there’s not any communication happening, there’s just one guy messing with the life of another.
I’d be perfectly happy to say that any group has to be granted a chance to make their case directly to their opponent in an organized meeting, once a year or something. But being able to sit there for weeks or months on end casting evil eyes on everyone who goes in and out isn’t equivalent to “dealing with someone face-to-face”.
Because the goal of freedom of speech is to provide the ability for people to be able to publicize their view, not to be able to mentally abuse someone in a way that that person can’t avoid.
It’s like the law on name changing. You can go out and scream, “I hate kikes!” but you can’t make that phrase your name. Your right to state your opinion is fine, but people also need to have the right to avoid listening to your opinion. If they have to be continuously exposed to it just be virtue of dealing with you and thus saying your name, then you’re removing that right. And so names like that are illegal just as an attempt to preserve the public peace against belligerence for belligerence’s sake.
The flaw in your analogy of two kids in school in sufficiently obvious that no one has bothered with it, but I guess an explanation is necessary. A school is an institution with the purpose of educating children, and hence can make rules to further that purpose, such as separating two hostile children. Ordinary citizens are not subject to such rules, because this is a free country. Schools can also require students to remain in their seats, go to the bathroom only at certain times, eat meals at certain times, address their teachers in a certain manner, and so forth, but ordinary citizens cannot be required to do such things.
What happens if the opponent refuses to show up at this organized meeting?
No, it is not. The First Amendment does not list this or anything else as the goal of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech already exists as a fact of the human condition, and the First Amendment only says that the government cannot remove it. It needs no goal.
The fundamental problem dividing you from everyone else on this question relates to something that you said much more clearly in your obesity thread. You think that most people are too stupid to make their own decisions and that a small ruling elite should be granted the power to make decisions for them. Others don’t think so. People will always be making decisions that you don’t approve of, so you might as well learn to live with it.