What are the legal repercussions of verbal abuse?
I hoped you could tell me. If there are no legal repercussions, then at least there are some social ones? Civil law? For instance, in case of domestic abuse, verbal abuse counts, no?
In my experience (and remember, this was at one clinic only) the protesters were harassing the people who were entering the clinic. They made personal remarks about the women’s morals, and about the lack of manliness of the men who would assist the women. Now, some protesters were pleading, but most were hissing and using shaming language, that is, calling the patients whores, sluts, and murderers.
There were a couple of protesters who begged the women to carry the pregnancy to term and adopt it out, if the women didn’t want to raise the child. However, they sure didn’t offer any assistance during either pregnancy or adoption.
I can’t and don’t say anything about their motives. But the tactics, yes. Verbal abuse, directly administered at people who do something that is:
a legal (where it is legal) and legally defined as the person’s own business;
b not interfering directly with the abuser’s own business;
c highly personal; they are targeting women on their personal business, not in their professional capacity. It doesn’t get any more personal then that.
d directed at persons who have to be there, they can’t choose to avoid the protesters; (in that sense, such protesters are more akin to a stalker on the street directly in front of a womans house, instead of the protestor bum in the mall she can avoid)
e. directed at women who are at their most vulnerable. Hormones can be raging,a s well as doubt, regret, fear, shame.
For the above reasons, I think such protest should be discouraged, in whatever way.
But how? Forbidding it is probably not possible, or even to be wished, as WhyNot said. But are there other ways? Civil law ways?
Apart for the more practical solutions, such as volunteers guiding the women in, and clinics with built in preteksts so women visiting the clinics can save face.
And I really would like an counter example of an issue I support that might have similar tactics.
Doesn’t the OP live in The Netherlands? I suspect the laws are different there.
yes, but I am debating circumstances in the US. We don’t have the pro-life picketers.
Interestingly enough, one of my friends has a daughter who just graduated college in 2009. She was adopted, and the circumstances of her adoption were precisely the ones under discussion now. Her mother was heading into a clinic and my friend was protesting, and said to him, as she passed, something like, “Shut up, you idiot. Who’s going to help me with expenses during this pregnancy? Who’s going to adopt the baby? You?”
He looked at her a moment and said, “Let me call my wife.”
They did, in fact, help her through her pregnancy, adopt the child, told her she was welcome, if she wanted, to remain part of the girl’s life.
She’s married now, with a beautiful child of her own. Her birth mom attended her graduation and has met her grandchild.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “counts.”
There are numerous resources to assist victims of emotional abuse in domestic settings. But for emotional abuse to be criminal, even in a domestic violence context, it must involve a threat of physical harm – or, of course, it must cross the line into actual physical harm.
So a wife whose husband heaps mere verbal abuse on her can get assistance in leaving him and relocating, but cannot have him arrested.
How about the verbal abuse heaped on people who cross a picket line – not as “scabs” but simply as customers?
OK. Just keep in mind that, in the US, we have a somewhat different attitude towards free speech and religious freedom than our European cousins.
Laws that limit political speech (and anti-abortion protestors fall in that category) are subject to the highest scrutiny. If there is no impact on health or safety or the freedom of other citizens to go about their business, then you really can’t curtail such speech. Protestors are not allowed to block the clinics or physically touch anyone attempting to enter a clinic. They wouldn’t be allowed to lie down in the streets and block traffic. Laws that require protestors to stay a certain distance from the clinic have been upheld, but there is no way our constitution would allow the banning of the protest altogether.
Distance. A set distance. A healthy distance.
Yes, certainly you can protest. Be as graphic and aggressive as you wish. But you’re going to have to be no less than 50yrds away. Personal safety issues, plus you cannot interfere with this business enterprises right to easy access from the street.
I think most women and girls would be okay if they knew the worst they would face is people 50yards away, shouting, whatever.
No one’s rights get trampled, done. And done!
That’s a lovely story. Call me when protesters do that routinely instead of screaming insults and waving posterboards of bloody fetuses around. Until then, as a group, they’re assholes.
Half a football field?
It’s not really the same situation, is it.
If you think it’s not, tell us why.
I suppose there are no “raging” female hormones involved, but if you want to hang your hat on that, we can explore the logical consequences of enshrining that into law.
I’m sure this happens, but I don’t have an mental image. I’m thinking a friend of mine, who painted "meat is murder"on a butcher shop window in the early nineties. Or protesters outside fur shops (which is not the same thing. IMHO. Not buying a fur coat is less of an life decision then not having an abortion). But my “meat is murder” friend was vandalizing the butchers property, so she should have been arrested just for that.
But customers getting shouted at for just crossing a picket line by protestors defending a typical “liberal” issue… I’m drawing a blank. Do you have an example?
I agree and would say this is an good solution.
Also, 50 yards, half a foodball field, is a good distance for the team that gets shouted at by the thousands in a stadium when they lose of play foul. I’m sure they would feel uncomfortable when the abuse was hurled from people close enough to see the spit flying from their lips.
It doesn’t matter if someone feels “uncomfortable”. There is no right to be protected from “uncomfortable” speech in the US. Unless the speech is physically threatening, then it can’t be curtailed.
As to the analogy Bricker offered, perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the violent history of labor protests in the US. That comes from both sides, but a customer crossing a picket line to shop at a store being protested can indeed feel very “uncomfortable” when being called a scab or some other epithet meant to intimidate the customer from entering the store.
If you don’t understand the difference between crossing a picket line and entering a building surrounded by anti-abortion protesters then I’m not sure what to tell you. The strikers actually have an interest in people continuing to patronize the business. The protesters are just asshats who are not invested in the clinic in any way.
Does that still happen nowadays?
Brickers story also inspired me to a different idea. The only ones that should be (morally) allowed to picket the lines are prospective parents offering to adopt. Make the protest positive, about reaching a joint solution, instead of the current hate-fest.
It would be far, far more effective, I think, if the goal is to offer an alternative to women considering abortions.