# Should anti-abortion protest in front of clinics be outlawed as harassment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2012, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791 "2012-08-27T07:01:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/81 "2012-08-27T23:15:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That is the difference between American and (some) European Countries’ ideas of what it means to live in a free society. It’s messy and disorderly and we don’t mind it all that much. Clarification: You don’t mind it that much > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think the protestors need to be able to be within hearing/seeing distance of the clinic. Otherwise, you might as well say they have to protest in the next town over. If that fits in the 25 ft rule, OK. > > I don’t think you can have a special volume constraint above whatever noise ordinances are in place. “Screaming” isn’t a technical term. And content cannot be regulated specifically for abortion protestors. If there are local ordinances against profanities in public, so be it. Given the nature of the thing they are trying to disrupt, and keeping in mind that there are plenty of specific types of laws designed to protect one class of people, or exceptions to the rule, I think its fine to have a rational, real-world ordinance targeting specifically abortion clinics to prevent the kind of harassment women face when going there. Across the street, at least 100ft, and noise kept to a certain decibel is fine with me. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/82 "2012-08-27T23:21:05Z")
[Huffington post](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/cath-sutton/antiabortion-protesters-stop-punishing-women_b_1709278.html) article by a woman working in an English abortion clinic who, unsurprisingly, shares my OP’s view. [Upcoming London Debate](http://ukfeminista.org.uk/events/freedom-of-speech-anti-abortion-protestors-and-women-rights-and-limits/) on this same topic. > [@](#): > > Chaired by David Allen Green and with a panel including Ann Furedi, Chief Executive, bpas (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) and Andrea Minichiello Williams, Chief Executive, Christian Concern the debate will examine the challenges posed by the activities of anti-abortion protestors outside clinics for those with a commitment to freedom of speech: > > How do we balance the freedoms to access and offer care with the right to oppose abortion? > Is limiting the freedom of speech of anti-abortion protestors necessary and proportionate to protect women? > Does the right to offend include those who are about to go through a medical procedure, including abortion? ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/83 "2012-08-27T23:24:36Z")
In the Huffington post article, it is mentioned that protesters (pretend to?) take camera footage of women entering the clinic. I know it is fair game to take pictures of someone in a public street. But taking pictures of women entering a clinic? ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/84 "2012-08-27T23:33:15Z")
Huh. A group of women, [http://vochoice.org/](http://vochoice.org/), has the goal of: > [@](#): > > For too long, the abortion discussion has been dominated by angry, nasty protests fueled by individuals and organizations that thrive on sensationalism and extremism. Now it is our turn. > > “Voice of Choice” was established as a calm, measured response to anti-abortion activists who engage in misguided, raging protest tactics that are often ill-informed and only serve to victimize women, pro-choice professionals, law-abiding businesses and unaligned bystanders. > > We use email, telephone and social media in peaceful, person-to-person counter-protests against groups that target abortion facilities, providers and patients, as well as their families and communities. We don’t question anyone’s right to express opinions and ideals; we challenge their bullying tactics and their contempt. And here is [an 1990 LA times article](http://articles.latimes.com/1990-08-13/news/mn-438_1_final-test) about anti-abortion protesters that have been in jail for protesting. > [@](#): > > In Los Angeles, trespassing charges have been filed against 1,278 protesters who have demonstrated at local clinics where abortions are performed. So far, 547 have been convicted, 10 and 20 at a time, and 728 await their day in court. Only a handful have accepted the government’s offer of probation in exchange for a pledge to leave the abortion clinics alone, prosecutors say. The majority have opted for sentences ranging from several weeks of unpaid community service to several harsh months behind bars. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/85 "2012-08-27T23:41:11Z")
More relevant [legal cases:](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-rejects-anti-abortion-protesters-criminal-charge-appeal/article4241533/) > [@](#): > > Supreme Court rejects anti-abortion protester’s criminal charge appeal > OTTAWA — Published Friday, Jun. 08 2012 > > One of the country’s most active anti-abortion protesters lost an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday. > > By an 8-1 margin, the justices rejected Linda Dale Gibbons’s argument that she should never have been charged under the Criminal Code for picketing too close to a Toronto abortion clinic. > > Ms. Gibbons maintains she should have been dealt with under civil law for disobeying a court order, not charged criminally. > > She was charged under section 127 of the Criminal Code. She argued that she should have been entitled to an exemption under that section that would have taken her case out of the criminal courts. > > The justices disagreed. > > The ruling means she will go to trial if the prosecution decides to pursue the case. > > The 63-year-old has been picketing abortion clinics for almost two decades and has spent a total of nine years behind bars intermittently. > > She was arrested again last December for picketing too close to a clinic. > > That arrest came just two days after her lawyer argued her case before the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/86 "2012-08-27T23:46:34Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > Suppose, on the other hand, you would have to walk a gauntlet of venom on your way to work. Would that strike you as a fair exchange for your own right to form somebody elses gauntlet somewhere else on your weekends? You’re trying to narrow the comparison, and that’s where your argument fails. We don’t accept political expression only when the target chooses to place himself or herself in a situation likely to be subjected to it. We accept political expression of virtually all types because we want to be able to express ourselves politically in virtually any way. That’s the quid pro quo–nothing more, and any attempt to surgically slice different forms of expression into “acceptable” and “unacceptable” misses the point. The “gauntlet of venom” on the way to work is not something I can legislate away unless I accept that other expressions that are considered offensive by a select few can likewise be restricted. > [@](#): > > Women visiting a clinic, don’t choose to be drawn in to a protest either for or against abortion. They are not politically active; they are on a very personal, medical errand. I don’t think I’m wrong when I say they would much, much rather be left alone by either pro choice or pro pife protesters. No one disputes that. It’s just not relevant to the position most people take in support of free speech. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/87 "2012-08-27T23:49:21Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Clarification: You don’t mind it that much Americans, in general, are more accepting of that than some European countries are. This can be seen by the way our laws address the issue. It would be inconceivable that Americans would enact laws like the ones in Germany banning the sale of NAZI symbols or the the laws in France banning religious symbols in schools. > [@](#): > > Given the nature of the thing they are trying to disrupt, and keeping in mind that there are plenty of specific types of laws designed to protect one class of people, or exceptions to the rule, I think its fine to have a rational, real-world ordinance targeting specifically abortion clinics to prevent the kind of harassment women face when going there. Across the street, at least 100ft, and noise kept to a certain decibel is fine with me. Can you give us some examples of the “plenty of specific types of laws designed to protect one class of people” _from political speech_? ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/88 "2012-08-28T00:13:16Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > Bolding mine. That is interesting. Does no one protest that? :dubious: Sorry for using that smilie, but…think about what you just wrote there. lol. Yes, people do protest that, both in the “Free Speech Zones” (seriously, that’s what they call them) and in the press. But the problem with segregating the protesters is that there’s no one to hear the protesters protesting the protester segregation! > [@Maastricht](#): > > And I really would like an counter example of an issue I support that might have similar tactics. I think you already came up with one: the vegan anti-fur PETA folks. Now, there aren’t as many of them as their are pro-life protesters, so the examples are smaller in scope and number, but they’ve done some pretty shaming protests in our country, at least. But I think there’s also a philisophical divide between conservatives and liberals working against finding “liberal” shaming protest tactics. Namely, we liberals tend to think that if we could just EDUCATE people, of course they’d see things our way. Shaming is antithetical to that. Conservatives tend to feel that people already know what’s right, they’re just ignoring what they already know out of selfish hedonism. Shaming works really well with that. > [@clairobscur](#): > > (bolding mine) > > I several times wondered about how they were getting away with this given the constitutional protections in the USA. > > What makes possible to keep protesters away from political meetings, but not away from abortion clinics? No idea. I was sure it’d be stricken down the first time it came to court, but apparently not. > [@Maastricht](#): > > Interesting. My impression from the US, is that racist and inappropriate (sexist or sex related) language is very heavily taboo, even more so then in the Netherlands. Well…it is but it isn’t. It’s more taboo on these boards and in our newspapers and from our politicians and public figures than it is in most of real life. It’s the kind of language that makes people look away on the bus, and feel vaguely embarrassed to be in the same space as the speaker. But racist and sexist comments are less likely to trigger a response from a total stranger than, say, someone saying your six year old looks hot. _That’s_ taboo enough that if someone said it on a bus, people probably would respond, even if it was something as inarticulate as, “Hey…DUDE! Not cool!” ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/89 "2012-08-28T02:15:29Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Shall we ban labor protesters shouting “SCAB!” at replacement workers who are just trying to go to work to feed their families? Can I point something out about the major difference between labor protesters and people blocking someone from getting an abortion? A woman [or even couple] interested in getting an abortion is effectively exercising personal choice about something that is intensely personal. In a sidebar, I used to go to an OB/GYN that was in the same building as one that also did abortions. Mine was my regular OB/GYN, even though I had my tubes tied for birth control, a yearly health exam is recommended. I got protested at going in for a wellness check. _that_ is highly offensive to me as it broke into my privacy. A person accepting a job that involves crossing a picket line is doing _EXACTLY_ what the picketer is doing - exercising their right to make a living to support themselves and their families if they have any. There is no illegal, quasi legal or immoral act going on. Both people want to make an honest wage for labor performed. It is not the problem of person A if person B has a bug up their ass about whatever it is they are protesting. I feel no problem banning the morons who want to force their concept of morality on others especially when it effectively interferes with their right to medical privacy. I would even ban all protesters from coming within 100 feet of an entrance and shouting or taking pictures of the people entering and leaving a property. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/90 "2012-08-28T03:46:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you give us some examples of the “plenty of specific types of laws designed to protect one class of people” _from political speech_? I think that’s part of the problem John, We aren’t really sure where the line is, ( or if one even exists) between political speech and abuse in regards to this issue. I find myself conflicted on this issue; as all forms of censorship seem evil to me, yet I cannot help but feel that certain types of speech at these events are nothing more than simple hate, bile, and abuse being covered in a sheer robe of politicization. Walk down the street calling women “whore”, “slut” and “baby-killer” and you’d likely be arrested or cited for disturbing the peace or some similar infraction; do it in front of a medical facility and suddenly it’s all okay _even if the woman concerned is not there for those services_? it seems to me that there needs to be a line drawn, however arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/91 "2012-08-28T04:58:07Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > I think that’s part of the problem John, We aren’t really sure where the line is, ( or if one even exists) between political speech and abuse in regards to this issue. I find myself conflicted on this issue; as all forms of censorship seem evil to me, yet I cannot help but feel that certain types of speech at these events are nothing more than simple hate, bile, and abuse being covered in a sheer robe of politicization. Walk down the street calling women “whore”, “slut” and “baby-killer” and you’d likely be arrested or cited for disturbing the peace or some similar infraction; do it in front of a medical facility and suddenly it’s all okay _even if the woman concerned is not there for those services_? it seems to me that there needs to be a line drawn, however arbitrary. Well, I don’t know if that’s true, but even if it is , it’s not a law protecting a “class” of people. It’s just a law about disturbing the piece. But I’ll wait for **YogSosoth** to clarify what was meant by that post. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/92 "2012-08-28T05:55:40Z")
Upthread I linked to a CNN article about Supreme Court rulings that have upheld certain restrictions. Since the discussion has turned to things like buffer zones I thought I’d drag out details from that article. In 1994 in _[Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madsen_v._Women%27s_Health_Center,_Inc.)_ the court ruled in a case from Florida on a court injunction that imposed certain restrictions on abortion clinic protests: **Constitutional:** [ul] [li]a 36ft buffer zone around clinic entrances and driveways[/li][li]noise level restrictions near the clinic during the hours of 7:30 am to noon Monday thru Saturday when procedures and recovery periods occur[/li][li][/ul][/li] **Unconstitutional:** [ul] [li]a 36ft buffer zone around properties adjacent to the clinic [/li][li]restrictions on the content of images the protesters could display on their signs[/li][li]a 300ft no approach buffer zone around the clinic[/li][li]a 300ft no approach buffer zone around the homes of employees of the clinic[/li][/ul] In 1997 in _[Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._Pro-Choice_Network_of_Western_New_York)_ the court ruled in a case from New York on a Federal District Court’s injunction. **Constitutional:** [ul] [li]fixed buffer zones[/li][/ul] **Unconstitutional:** [ul] [li]moving buffer zones around individuals[/li][/ul] In 2000 in _[Hill v. Colorado](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v._Colorado)_ the court ruled in a case from Colorado on a state law restricting protester’s actions within 8 feet of a person within 100ft of an entrance to a health care facility. **Constitutional:** [ul] [li]restrictions on approaching within 8 feet of a person (without consent) for the purpose of protest, education, distribution of literature or counseling if that person is within 100ft of the entrance of any healthcare facility.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/93 "2012-08-28T06:16:15Z")
Now the IMHO part about those court cases… The _Masden_ case ruled on a lower court’s injunction, not on a law. In upholding a noise restriction it is clear that the object-able noise is the pro-life protesters. Would the clinic equally object to noise from road construction? If not then the court has upheld a restriction that is not content neutral. That is a problem. A limit on noise, whatever the cause, is ok. A limit on the noise that is only applied to someone’s political expression, based upon the content of that expression, is not. The _Hill_ case opens the door to the problem of selective enforcement based upon content of the message. The state law limits approaching a person within 8 feet to hand out literature if that person is within 100ft of an entrance to a healthcare facility. Doesn’t matter the content of the literature, which is why it is constitutional. So if the local cancer society wants to pass out pamphlets describing their services and asking for donations they cannot legally do that in front of the hospital without gaining consent of each individual they would like to approach. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/94 "2012-08-28T06:34:37Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Can I point something out about the major difference between labor protesters and people blocking someone from getting an abortion? Nobody here is advocating that protesters be permitted to block women from getting an abortion. In fact, going back to the first page you’ll see many people saying it’s not okay to block people and when it happens the law is being broken. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/95 "2012-08-28T14:22:48Z")
Strangely enough, the links in this thread have given me a new appreciation for anti-abortion protesters. I thought they were mainly motivated by petty hate, that they liked to have someone to condescend to, and to bully, and liked feeling morally superior while doing so. But reading about women protesters gladly going to jail, and standing there day in day out for years, well, you can’t say they aren’t idealistic and dedicated. They probably feel “if I’ve only saved one, it is worth it”. And that feeling, I can relate to. I still think they’re wrong and that they should direct their energies somewhere else, but at least now I feel that their effort is mostly, meant to be positive. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/96 "2012-08-28T14:46:02Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Can I point something out about the major difference between labor protesters and people blocking someone from getting an abortion? > > A woman [or even couple] interested in getting an abortion is effectively exercising personal choice about something that is intensely personal. This is pretty much beside the point. People have a Constitutional right to protest other people’s private decisions too. Having or providing an abortion is an intensely personal decision, no question about it. If I think that decision is wrong, then I get to protest if I want to. > [@](#): > > I feel no problem banning the morons who want to force their concept of morality on others especially when it effectively interferes with their right to medical privacy. I don’t think there is a right to medical privacy that says nobody can look at you when you are entering a public accommodation like a clinic. Or even assume what you’re up to when you do so. **You don’t get to silence other people because you don’t like what they say.** “Free speech for me, but not for thee” is NOT how the Constitution works. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/97 "2012-08-28T15:46:15Z")
Shodan, could you please get off your high horse? Nobody in this thread wants to take away the right to free speech; we’re just discussing if it should have (social or legal) limits here, as it has in so many other places. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/98 "2012-08-28T16:24:14Z")
As to laws protecting certain classes of people from speech, Missouri recently passed a law that is now being challenged in the courts:[SB755 - Enacts the "House of Worship Protection Act"](http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=1321951) The summary is: > [@](#): > > Under this act, a person commits the crime of disturbing a house of worship if such person intentionally and unreasonably disturbs a building used for religious purposes by using profanity, rude or indecent behavior, or making noise. A person commits the crime if they engage in such behavior within the house of worship or so close to the building that the services are disturbed. > > A person also commits the crime if he or she intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes with any person exercising the right to religious freedom or who is seeking access to a house of worship. So, a question to the legal experts here. Can abortion clinics put a chapel in their buildings and effectively end the protests? Could a similar law be passed substituting “house of worship” for “abortion clinic”? Or are the [challenges](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/aclu-challenges-mo-law-against-disturbing-worship-services)to this law likely to succeed? Seeing **Shodan** ’s point in particular about “for me but not for thee” - do you support the ACLU challenge to this law? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/99 "2012-08-28T16:42:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s why your wife has a shot while you’re out of luck. Because the judge is more likely to make the judgment that your wife is a victim who needs protection from the court, than to make the same judgment about you. It occured to me that this might be misconstrued as being a comment about Bricker specifically. It was a general comment about men and women. Bricker would be perceived as being more menacing because he is a man, not because of anything specific about him (AFAIK). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791/100 "2012-08-28T17:03:35Z")
[QUOTE=Jas09] Seeing Shodan’s point in particular about “for me but not for thee” - do you support the ACLU challenge to this law? [/QUOTE] If you’re asking me, then I will respond that I don’t see what this law achieves (apart from good publicity for the legislators). IANAL, but I would expect that going into a church and screaming would be “disturbing the peace” already, and therefore already illegal. Likewise if you stood outside a church (or an abortion clinic, or a restaurant for that matter) and screamed thru a bullhorn loud enough that the people inside couldn’t worship/have an abortion/enjoy their meal/whatever. And I would think intentionally interfering with, intimidating, or injuring someone is assault no matter what they were up to. If the purpose of the law is to offer protections to people going to church that are not available to those seeking abortions, then no, I wouldn’t support the law and the ACLU should be trying to get it struck down. If the idea is that “gay people protesting the Mormon stance on gay marriage have to behave at least as well as anti-abortion protesters”, then OK, but I don’t see the point. What I am against is content-based censorship or restrictions. If anti-abortion protesters have to stay 30 feet away but gay protesters can press their noses against the stained glass windows and holler, then No. If, no matter what you are protesting, you can’t block people from entering or touch them, then Yes. If that is the question. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anti-abortion-protest-in-front-of-clinics-be-outlawed-as-harassment/632791.md?page=6)