For a country that values “free speech” so much and does not want to protect anyone if it is just words, no matter how uncomfortable, there sure are a lot of exceptions made for favourite groups. Kids are “protected” from foul language in the media; filming politicians from contra-protesters; grown burly football players from angry fans. Spouses are somewhat protected from abusing spouses; minorities from abusive racist speech.
Only pregnant women don’t have such protection. How is that fair?
Looks like both sides are still at it:
From March 2012 in the UK: Anti-abortion prayer vigil faces noisy pro-choice protesters
From May 2012 in Wyoming, USA:
Abortion Protests And Counter Protests In Full Swing In Jackson
Each side has websites dedicated to rallying the troops for a protest/counter protest.
I think it is pretty much the same situation. The abortion protesters are both asking the government to outlaw abortion, as well as expressing their opinion (to the women they believe are seeking abortions) that abortion is morally wrong. Similarly, the Deep South protesters were both asking the government to outlaw segregation, and expressing their opinion to the owners of the lunch counters/bus companies/whatever that segregation was morally wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
No, that is not the same thing at all. You would have had a point if all they would have done was protesting to the general public and appealing to the press and to the government. But the racists also posted at schools. During school hours. At the moment when the black children, caught in the middle, were walking to the schools. They were hissing at the black children and their mothers entering the new schools. Sure. they were not using violence.:rolleyes:. That is the same the anti abortion protesters are doing, hissing at women caught in the middle of failed birth control and their personal circumstances. That is the grand tradition the pro-lifers stand in.
Iggy, Not quite. Your first link is a protest and contra protest, but it happens on a public square in London, not near the entrance of an abortion clinic. The second link also tells of demonstration on a public square and near schools.
We were wondering if there still are counter protests to the picketeers near clinics.
It probably isn’t the case, but I’d hope that the same rules would apply independent of the content. People have a right to free speech on public property, but that right doesn’t extend to harassing people or creating a nuisance. I think in abortion protests this can be difficult to resolve for a clinic that only has access through public property. Protestors who have a right to speak can also end up denying others their right to use the public property themselves. And those who participate in civil disobediance, intentionally exceeding their rights as a form of protest should expect that legal repercussions could occur. But in reality, public reaction to any protest will affect how the laws are enforced. That is one of the points of our democratic process, though it makes things murky at times.
(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?
That is why I asked if there is much protest against the picketlines near cinics, and if so, how that protest is shaped.
From what I gathered in general teksts, anti- abortion protesters near clinics seemed to be an inevitable part of life for American women visiting those clinics.
Although my image from it comes from the movie “Juno”.
A data point: in the Netherlands, we have one of the lowest rates of abortions in the western world.
When it comes to abortion protest, we have the FIOM. They are an government and church funded pro-life organization. They occasionally have another ad campaign: “Unintended pregnancy? Fiom helps both mother and child”. They have offices where pregnant women can go and get help. Help usually means talks with the focus on how the mom can prevent abortion, either by adopting her baby out or rearranging her life.
But over here, a woman chooses to go to FIOM. FIOM members and pro-life activists never picket clinics.
Protests and Counter Protests at clinics, July 2012 in Charlotte, NC USA
OSA July Clinic Siege Weak; Large Numbers Expected During DNC
Looks like they are gearing up for the Democratic National Convention there soon.
Feb 2012, Cranston, RI USA
Cranston Clinic Defense; Protect Women’s Rights!
There is a YouTube video of a Rhode Island protest with counter protesters from May 2012
Looks like sometimes they almost miss each other in passing…
Seattle Clinic Defense Snoozes through August Protest
The Pro-life side was leaving as the pro-choice side was arriving. August 2012, Seattle, WA USA
The New York pro-choice side has a Facebook page, with counter protests and clinic escorting planned every Saturday. I suppose they wouldn’t plan that if the pro-life protest wasn’t reliably there.
Again, both sides have entire websites set up to organize their protest/counter protest.
Well, I can’t really agree. Deciding what is murder and what is not in a given society is most certainly everybody’s business. Including people who don’t have the intent (or the means) to adopt a baby or to house a 75 yo set for mandatory euthanasia.
You have to beg the question to say otherwise.
Thanks Iggy for looking those up. Interesting to see how such protest is organized these days, and from both sides.
Children don’t always have the same rights as adults, but this is not a case of restricting political speech.
I dont’ know what you’re talking about here.
Again, I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about, but can you explain how that speech is political in nature?
Bricker already addressed this. There is no protection unless a threat of physical harm is present.
They have the same protection any adult has.
Keep in mind that the government can and does restrict non-political speech all the time.
Yes when it means general protest on the town square or through petitions. But I feel (and it is just a feeling) that it isn’t fair to pit “general” protesters against women for whom the choice has become intensely personal. It is a little too easy to take the “high ground” then.
So it is just a matter of definition then? How are the personal slurs against passing women from anti abortionists protected political speech, while racist slurs were not?
What makes you think racist slurs are not? I can go up to Shaq and call him a stupid nigger if I want. Wouldn’t be too smart, but I can’t be arrested for that.
No? That surprises me.
But I am correct that there is, among the general educated public in the US, a very heavy social taboo on racial slurs, right? And pregnant women are not protected by a similar taboo on being called a murderer or slut, right?
Like I said, we have a different sense of free speech than Europeans do.
When it comes to protest in the US, most social taboos go out the window.
Perhaps you should spend some time in the Pit here and see what “social taboos” are obeyed by people you are politically aligned with. It’s not exactly the same as IRL, it can be taken just as personally.
They shouldn’t be outlawed but they should have more restrictions on them than now
No, the situations are similar. Striking workers do regularly try and “shame”, “discourage”(or whatever other appropriate term you’d like to use) people trying to patronize a business and anti-abortion protesters do the same thing.
Obviously, I have vastly more sympathy for the strikers, but you can’t ban one without banning the other.
The same is true of people picketing businesses they don’t like. I. E. businesses that sell pornography, strip clubs, or that discriminate against gays in states that allow workplace discrimination against gays.