Clarification: You don’t mind it that much
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.
Huffington post article by a woman working in an English abortion clinic who, unsurprisingly, shares my OP’s view.
Upcoming London Debate on this same topic.
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?
Huh. A group of women, http://vochoice.org/, has the goal of:
And here is an 1990 LA times article about anti-abortion protesters that have been in jail for protesting.
More relevant legal cases:
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.
No one disputes that. It’s just not relevant to the position most people take in support of free speech.
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.
Can you give us some examples of the “plenty of specific types of laws designed to protect one class of people” from political speech?
: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!
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.
No idea. I was sure it’d be stricken down the first time it came to court, but apparently not.
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!”
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.
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.
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 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 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 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]
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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"
The summary is:
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 challengesto 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?
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).
[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