Can you be specific about what additional restrictions you would like to see imposed?
That’s only partially true.
Absent any physical abuse, she can still get a restraining order.
And if he violates that (again, with no physical abuse) he gets arrested.
Bad analogy. No one is going to get a restraining order for calling someone a slut once or twice. There has to be a pattern of abuse and harassment.
If the anti-aboriton protestor followed a woman home shouting “slut” at her, and waited outside her door to yell “slut” every time she opened the door to the point where it interfered with the woman’s ability to go about her normal activities, that would be harassment and the protestor could be subject to a restraining order, too.
They could still yell “slut”, but only from a distance defined by the restraining order.
I did say that it could involve a threat pf physical harm, as well as actual harm.
In my state, you cannot get a restraining order unless you allege a threat of physical harm or actual physical harm:
So in Virginia, what I said was completely correct – a protective order cannot issue unless the petitioner alleges either violence or the threat of violence.
Are you directing my attention to some other state? Which one?
I’m not sure what point you think I was making, but I doubt if it’s anything I actually intended.
I was merely replying to the implication in Bricker’s post that speech was protected - or at least not actionable - in domestic relationships, and only physical action triggered legal consequences.
Depends what the RO said. Generally ROs prohibit all contact, and not just from close up.
Not to speak for Yog Sosoth, but I could think of a few conditional restraints that might ease the burden on the patients a bit.
Distance: Perhaps they should be restrained to say 25 ft from either side of the entrance. No more lining the sidewalk and forcing a gauntlet of venom.
Alternatively-
Behaviour code: Many cities have an off duty, or liason officer at such sites to monitor the protestors and counter protestors to ensure that things don’t get out of hand. We could under current laws (disturbing the peace, etc) enact reasonable restrictions against screaming, and foul and abusive language. Such protestors that cannot contain themselves (regardless of political side) will be asked to leave the protest and go home. No arrests, but perhaps a (very small) citation could be levied against those who do not comply with the officers?
I’m not at all comfortable with restrictions on the freedom of speech, but neither am I entirely comfortable with the extremely broad definition we use in the US currently either.
Well, to recall my words:
I clearly said a threat was sufficient.
But at the same time, mere unfriendly, ugly language is not. One cannot obtain a restraining order - at least in my state – by merely alleging hateful, vile, disgusting language. There must be, as I said, a threat of physical harm or actual physical harm.
It varies a lot by state. For example, according to this website, “disturbs your peace” counts as domestics abuse under CA law. Similar applies to other states, again according to that website. (E.g. causing fear or emotional distress in Delaware, or harassment in NH.
[I realize that it’s not statutes or caselaw (although they cite it for the CA example above) but it seems reputable, AFAICT, and jibes with a lot of other cites I’ve seen over the years. If you object to the source, I’ll try to find something more authoritative - let me know.]
I’ve spent a few moments going over California caselaw construing those provisions, and not really finding any examples in which people living together invoked the very broad “disturbs your peace” to justify an order.
On the other hand, their courts do say that the protections are broad.
Broad enough to apply to verbally agressive clinic protesters?
According to this CA law firm, it’s pretty broad indeed.
My son and I took part one year in the Pro-Life March in D.C. It was organized by our parish school, and the bus we sent down was filled with soccer moms and dads and their kids.
There were organized counter-protests at several parts along the march, and some were peopled by a rather, let’s say, discourteous sort, shrieking obscenities and offensive chants at us as we passed. It was a lesson for my ten-year-old son in free speech. There were people there absolutely enraged at what we believed, at what they saw as an evil imposition of will on women who knew better. And they expressed that rage as we all passed, moms, dads, and ten-year-old kids.
I wouldn’t dream of supporting a law that would have restricted their ability to express their rage. Because a similar law would also mean someone could stop us from marching. That’s how it works in a free society.
This. I’d move them back a bit more, maybe use the last Republican National Convention “free speech zones” as a guideline, since the GOP are obviously such proponents of personal speech and rights. It would be great if these protestors could be corralled into a little pen across the street and a hundred feet away from the clinic’s building
Not to get hyperbolic here, but when it comes to a balance between the right to protest and the rights of the clinic to conduct business, in the specific case of abortion, I’d err on the side of the clinics and the women going to them. Considering that the protestors aren’t so much targeting the clinic but the individuals themselves, less leeway should be given to them. I’d consider many forms of such protest to be harassment and act accordingly
Since a clinic is a medical facility, perhaps some sort of noise ordinance can be put into place. Shout too loud, or bringing out the bullhorns will get you kicked out
Indeed – but I have to say I remain skeptical. On its face, that would seem to suggest a heated verbal argument in a home could give rise to a restraining order that forced someone from the house:
Unfortunately I don’t have time to dive in to California’s family law caselaw just now, but I would very much like to hear from any family law practitioners. I cannot believe that if I live in California and allege that my wife has made me feel guilty when I have done nothing wrong, I can get a restraining order.
No, because they specify that these protections are available for domestic partners – spouses, former spouses, dating, etc.
I don’t believe it either. But I think your wife might have a decent shot. 
I am not a family practitioner or any other sort of lawyer. But my understanding of the way these matters work in general is that it’s not that the judge decides if he/she believes that your spouse called you a nasty name this triggers an automatic granting of a RO. The judge has considerable latitude here, and what they would do as a practical matter, is decide if in their judgment a RO is warranted in this circumstance. And one thing they’ll consider (in addition to whether it’s likely to end up moving to actual violence) is whether the overall situation is abusive - if one spouse is being battered psychologically by the constant verbal/emotional abuse from the other spouse, and thus needs protection.
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.
At any rate, for purposes of this issue here, I think the point is made, and I think your latest response to Maastricht misses the point. Yes, these RO laws are specifically for family members and the like, and not for protest situations. But the question in the OP was “should anti-abortion protest in front of clinics be outlawed as harassment?”, not whether they already are. And if there are laws that protect family members in similar situations, this suggests that it would be possible to do the same for abortion-seekers.
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.
Yes, but both you and the contra protesters choose to march/protest in that free society. You are a match.
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?
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.
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.
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. I didn’t know it wasn’t illegal, though. The differences are a debate onto itself; for instance, about five people have been fined/imprisoned in the Netherlands in last ten years for verbal attacks on our Queen. (not political, mostly just incoherent obscene hate) Still, the prison sentences for insulting the Queen surprised and worried me too. Our politicians, on the other hand, are free targets.
However, I can’t think of a cultural parallel of the fiery ad-hominem protests you guys have. it seems that indeed, as you say, " When it comes to protest in the US, most social taboos go out the window." That is a difference with the Netherlands. With the current exeption of soccer hooliganism, extreme animal rights activism and extreme muslim activism, I can’t think of any mainstream political hot button topics that would cause people to behave like the abortion clinic protesters in the US. It would cause a public outrage. We seem to be much, much more lukewarm and more polite in our modern protests.
In is an interesting difference, and I don’t really know what causes it. I can’t say we have more or less freedom then you guys have; just less passion, less moral outrage ? We’re seldom angry for some moral sake; we’re too practical, I think.