I hate to break it to you Marie, but every Election Day, my right to free expression is being infringed upon by state law. There is a 150 foot buffer zone between political sign holders and the entrance to the polling station.
So Marie, if I have to stand half a football field away from the door while I hold my “Question Two, Bad for You” sign, or pass out emery boards and combs with my city councillor’s name on them, then you can keep your Grim Reapers and bloody fetus placards 35 feet away from women who are already going through enough.
——–
Hey, sports media: stop referring to the World Series match-up as Sox vs. Rox.
The NL team is the Colorado Rockies; there’s only one true Rox. Don’t make me send K-O after you guys.
——–
Speaking of Brockton, this is your last warning, Tom Menino. I don’t care how many World Series the Red Sox win, or Super Bowls the Patriots- who don’t even play in Boston- win, Boston is not The City of Champions, so stop referring to it as such. What next? Are you going to start calling Boston America’s Hometown, or The Land of Many Beavers?
Boston is already The Hub of the Universe- you don’t need to go around poaching other cities’ nick-names.
i like it. and maybe we could re-engineer the loyalty pledge idea into a respect and honesty pledge. to be allowed to stand as close as 150 feet from the entrance, the bearers of bloody fetuses would have to vow not to speak unless spoken to by a woman seeking their advice. unless/until that time, they would just bear silent witness.
<
p>
i have doubts whether the idea will fly, though. intimidation is apparently so much more fun. so is burying your own guilt by thrashing others for what you yourself have done.
…and I suspect that it is, there’s no constitutional violation. Actually, I would extend it to the entire portion of the sidewalk in front of the clinic property.
Raj, our local legal mind đŸ™‚
Correct me if I am wrong and I probably am but …
If I want to stand in front of Freds Sandwich shop with a sign saying “eating at freds will leave you dead” wont I be made to move along because I am interfering with buisness?
Like tp across the street which is hmmm, about 35 feet away?
…you can. Sorry, but I would have thought that that would be obvious. But, per the 1st amendment, the statute would have to be content neutral.
I think. Such statute has to apply to any or all estableshments the same regardless of what service is provided by it. Thanks
…maybe it does. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
I was just commenting on how it appears to me that this statute wouldnt be granting anything new to these clinics that it doesnt already grant to the hypothetical sandwich shop.
If you are standing with your sign in a place that isn’t on private property, I’m not at all sure that you can be summarily moved along. There are routinely PETA protests outside KFCs, or those Phelps people outside churches in which a funeral is taking place. Everyone would love to move these poeple far away, but cannot.
…the anti-Phelps statutes are directed to noise at cemetaries. Not so much at churches, but I suspect that they differ from state to state.
<
p>
I have no idea what “KFC” refers to.
from what i’ve gathered from news report, many anti-phelps laws are expected to crumble to dust upon scrutiny becasue they are obviously unconstitutional. it’s just that the system hasn’t had time to respond yet.
If people can’t get their content from people outside a polling place or clinic, then they can only get their content from the media. So it’s very pro-media to keep individuals from getting a message to people. Why can’t it be the same as a sandwich shop?
Is there such a thing as content neutral?
<
p>
If the statute is written in a content neutral manner, and if it is enforced in a content neutral manner, then it is content neutral.
<
p>
If you have evidence (not suppositions, but evidence) either that the statute is not written in a content neutral manner, or that it is not being enforced in a content neutral manner, you are free to present it.
… Totally hypothetical: Can the state enact a law that isn’t content neutral but where the speech in question promotes a position where the state has a compelling interest?
<
p>
Trying to think of examples… say a law that treats promotion of democratic participation differently from protestation of democratic participation. Could it be argued that the state has a compelling interest in the participation of its citizens in the democratic process and that this interest can trump any requirement for content neutrality?
…Don’t know the answer. I dislike doing hypotheticals for that reason.
How is the situation I describe not evidence in and of itself? The only message people get is the one they had before they left the house, from the mass media. If there was a third party candidate or a issue that the media didn’t tell them about, this law bans that content.
Its just another thing politicians are doing to jostle to get endorsements from extremist abortionist organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Is there really a big difference between 150 and 35 feet? Not really from either perspective, your still close enough to have your prayers and thoughts heard and maybe save some lives through the process. From the womens perspective these occasionally hostile voices are not far enough.
<
p>
Hows this for a nice compromise the protesters are banned from a significant vicinity of the clinics but in exchange sex ed teachers will be required to tell teenagers about the viability of fetuses during the various trimesters, mention they have heart beats, show sonograms, etc and do this alongside talks about condoms. This way the pro-lifers are happy since less teenagers will go to the clinics and “pro-choicers” should be happy because they would be making educated decisions.
<
p>
Yet for some reason the MA legislature and the Congress thanks to intense lobbying by NARAL and Planned Parenthood are preventing such information from reaching the people that need it. These groups are not pro-choice, they profit from abortions and its in their interest to keep those clinics full and to ensure that teenagers actively prevent teenagers from getting information if it might stop them from making that choice.
<
p>
The Dems will continue to lose the heartland if they keep propping these people up, and they are disloyal friends keeping Lieberman, and Collins in office and endorsing Chaffee and Spector.
between 18 and 35.
<
p>
There’s a Planned Parenthood clinic on Comm Ave [somewhere just past BU West]. They’ve got white lines painted on the sidewalk from the curb to their door — the anti-protest lines. Making them twice as far apart would make a significant difference to both those intending to use the clinic and those trying to convince the potential clients to change their mind.
<
p>
I don’t know what the right number is, but it occurs to me that I’d like to try something. I’m going to have my wife [if she’ll join me, otherwise some other woman] join me in entering a Planned Parenthood during a protest. I want to feel what it’s like to have the protest pointed straight at me. Dark curiosity I suppose.
Not really, not psychologically.
<
p>
Sure, the anti-abortionists (let’s drop the “pro-life” shtick; is there anybody who’s actually anti-life?) may be shouting and yelling at you and waving the signs at you…
<
p>
…but you will not be actually going through the process. You won’t actually feel the psychological sting of a woman / couple going through a very difficult time and making a tough choice only to be blasted by several dozen strangers who think they know better than you.
<
p>
It won’t be the same — not at all, I suspect.
Anti abortionists? I dont know. They actualy do consider themselves to be “pro-life” so they should be free to call themselves that if they like.
To my knowledge noone has clearly defined the point at which “life” can be said to begin.
Until such time the debate roars on … wonder for how many more generations it will do so …
Just sayin’
they just disagree, and people are free to ignore their definitions, that’s all.
<
p>
I, for one, am somewhat partial to Richard Feynman’s definition.
http://www.epinions….
Feynman wrote about it in his book Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!.
<
p>
Feynman was an agnostic and a scientist, so he didn’t use spiritual or even philosophical reasoning to determine when a blastocyst/fetus was human. He used science.
<
p>
The gist [and I’m not giving it justice] is brain waves. When the brain starts creating electrical signals that closely approximate the electrical signals we see in healthy babies, we’re there. When does that happen? IIRC, sometime between 4 and 6 months after conception.
<
p>
Before that, it’s a ball of cells that more closely approximates a tumor than a person in functionality. After that time period, brain activity looks like the activity of fully functioning people, and since Feynman believed that the brain is what really makes people people, that was his criteria.
<
p>
I think it’s rather elegant, but I have no medical training whatsoever, so I suggest you read it directly [it’s a great book otherwise too!] and decide for yo-self.
…but unfortunately, Feynman was hardly an authority on whether a fetus is a “person” for purposes of the Constitution, which is the relevant issue. Others have different opinions regarding “personhood.” Let’s examine this
<
p>
The gist [and I’m not giving it justice] is brain waves. When the brain starts creating electrical signals that closely approximate the electrical signals we see in healthy babies, we’re there.
<
p>
Brain waves. Apparently, there was short shrift given to the fact that a blastocyst that has the correct number of chromosomes (and, OK, genes) may well develop into an entity that exhibits brain waves. And apparently, there is short shrift given to the fact that a fetus, after having developed brain waves, may very well be stillborn. It strikes me that the “brain wave” touchstone is questionable at best.
<
p>
RvW established a trimester arrangement under which “personhood” could be determined for purposes of the US Constitution. The most important trimester was the last: whether the fetus could survive outside of the womb, with medical assistance, of course. Long after RvW, Sandra Day O’Connor noted that, with advances in medical technology, the point in time at which a fetus could be viable was moving back in time.
What the hey …
<
p>
“Long after RvW, Sandra Day O’Connor noted that, with advances in medical technology, the point in time at which a fetus could be viable was moving back in time”.
<
p>
I would like to concur along with adding a footnote.
The periphrial discussions occuring 30+ years ago touched upon on a wide range of societal topics, all of whoms details have changed with time. I do not feel I am the only one looking at this topic in a different light than I did 30+ years ago.
I meant a consensus definition.
You got me to google Feynman.
It sounded to me like he hasnt reached a consensus with himself. I guess thats like a lot of us …
…Feynman was a fine physicist. William Shockley was, too. And James Crick. All three earned Nobel Prizes, the first two in physics, and the last in biology. Shockley and Crick in their later years turned into virulent racists–nothing to do with their specialties.
<
p>
As an aside, the Nova episode regarding the interview with Feynman was probably the best thing they ever did. They edited out all the interviewers’ questions, and just presented Feynman’s responses–from which the context could easily be determined.
<
p>
What sticks to me to this day is Feynman’s description of a little hike that he took with his father. The two of them observed a bird. The father asked Richard, what do you know about the bird? (The following is a paraphrase) Richard responded with the (human) name for the bird. The father asked, so you know the name of the bird, but what do you really know anything about the bird? Its nesting habits. Its feeding habits. Its sleeping habits. Its procreation habits. What do you know about the bird?
<
p>
And that questioning by his father is why Richard became the wonderful physicist that he became. What do you know, other than its name?
I like his answer because of it’s logical, intuitive foundation. It doesn’t matter to me if Feynman were a physicist or a bongo drum player in South America or a safe cracker at Los Alamos or a door thief.
<
p>
But thanks for the warning dad.
It doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to.
<
p>
It makes sense to call them anti-abortionists when they are protesting abortion as opposed to the death penalty or euthanasia.
So it will be okay to call the other side of the debate pro abortionists?
I just havent seen it used here on this blog ….
Somehow those terms seem demeening rather than the using the widely accepted brighter cheerier imagery;
LIFE, CHOICE … how could anyone be against either ..
Demeening labels dont usualy invite dialogue and in such complex cases it hardly seems that one should be party in any way to abridging ANYONES first ammendment rights.
A’int nobady interested in the abortion issue who is also interested in dialog about the abortion issue. Demeaning labels is where its at.
I’m interested in it going away as an issue and this isnt cutting it đŸ™‚
They can’t even have a game.
Just agree to call one side Murderers and the other Religious Zealots; lose the ‘free speech’ buffers; flip a coin and sell tickets to the bruha.
<
p>
ESPN tv rights would probably take in as much cash as a state casino.
if you give the gauntlet-running women multimillion dollar contracts, you’ve got a deal!
…conceding that individual women should have the right to choose to have an abortion is hardly synonymous with saying that they should have abortions.
<
p>
And that is what the antis would like you to believe–that the pro-choice people want women to have abortions.
<
p>
I apologize if you are unable to comprehend the difference.
pro-choicers and womb-controllers. seems to sum it up pretty well.
But it clearly sums up your particular view
is all i ever offer here. thanks for recognizing that. sorry you seem to denigrate that. who do you speak for then if not yourself?
My view, like your view, is representative of one of the three sides of this debate. We hear so much from two of the sides. I feel the need to voice the opinion from the unheard center … the ones wishing to see just a tinge of civility in a consequential topic of discussion
your speaking for “the unheard”. if they are unheard, are you sure they really exist? why not let them speak for themselves? if YOU wish to see a more sedate debate, why are you speaking in such an inflammatory way? your answers often don’t track with your assertions. at least, not to my reading.
Why would you assume that people either fall into “pro” or “con” categories? Shouldnt there be an undecided?
I know a few, quite a few who are undiecided. And being the BLUE MASS GROUP it isnt too difficult to speculate as to why the PRO forces outnumer those opposed who are mysteriously absent. Should we assume they also do not exist? Nah, That would be ludicrous or else you wouldnt take such pleasure in deriding them.
But even in there absense I recognize their existence and respect their opinion as I do yours.
I am allowed to voice that.
welcome to acknowledge anyone’s existence or opinion. i think that’s great. but saying shit like or else you wouldnt take such pleasure in deriding them really is counterproductive if you are serious about having a balanced conversation. because what you are doing is 1) assuming something about me, then 2) placing a value on what you assume i think/do. and this is balanced or respectful how? this is why i said above that your assertions and words don’t track too well. maybe you are genuinely after a civil conversation, but you don’t come off that way. you come off as very belligerant and argumentative. just sayin, fyi.
“pro-choicers and womb-controllers. seems to sum it up pretty well.”
<
p>
What else could I assume?
suggested nice, neutral terms for people on all sides of the debate, i’ve somehow missed them. care to reiterate them? but if you’re just going to raise a question and then throw mud at anyone who answers, i have nothing left to say. live long and prosper.
You can talk about it all you want, but it's impossible to enforce property rights.
I’m not sure if the “property rights” line is a dig so I will asuume it wasnt.
I actualy come up right in the middle of this one. I support defending a womans right to determine what she wants to do right up to the point of considering the rights of the unborn not to be terminated.
For me, I cant decide if the unborn have rights because I can not scientifical find enough credit or discredit to any of the multitude of theories that apply.
I also oppose the death penalty and it has absolutly nothing to do with religion.
When has a fetus developed sufficiently to warrant it's consideration as a citizen?
One answer is:
When it has developed enough to exist independently of the womb.
Another is:
When it starts paying taxes.
You could answer either way and you would be a far left extremist to some and a far right extremist to others. That was my point. The claim of centrist goes only as far as your own consideration, because it all falls apart when others judge your opinions based on their own.
đŸ™‚
After thinking over this question some, you may have a point.
<
p>
The real issue with these folks calling themselves “pro-life” is that so many of them aren’t really. For example, I suspect (but cannot prove) that more anti-abortionists are pro-death-penalty than not. Just an example. Are they really pro-life? No, the unifying aspect is their opposition to abortion. They are not all equally committed to life. What would it actually mean to be “in favor of life”?
<
p>
To be anti-abortion, though, is an easy concept to master. It’s also much more accurate. They do not want people to get abortions. Simple, concise.
<
p>
The opposing side, though, cannot be accurately called “pro-abortionists”, because it implies that they are in favor of abortions. Many of them, myself included, actually are not. I think an abortion is an abhorrent thing, and could never imagine actually taking advantage of the right to one.
<
p>
Except under dire circumstances. And dire circumstances do exist. And not everybody believes as I believe (some, for example, may consider non-“dire” circumstances as acceptable reasons to get an abortion).
<
p>
My beliefs, and those of most of the anti-anti-abortionist crowd, are best summed up as pro-choice. I don’t want abortions, but I want the legal ability and right to have them when deemed necessary.
<
p>
(Who does the deeming? What’s the definition of necessary? Those are questions left as an exercise for the reader. I’m generally comfortable with how things operate these days, though they could always be improved.)
<
p>
So I am not pro-abortion, not by any means. But nor is it accurate to say that I am anti-abortion (since I accept that they have their place).
<
p>
Pro-choice vs. anti-abortion — that’s how I see it.
Many, many places, old and new. Blood starts flowing around 4 weeks iirc, so before that, the embryo is a human embryo, but is not yet alive, so it isn’t killing anything to stop it from coming to life. It’s like a house being built. Before a family moves in, it’s just wood and nails. It becomes a home – alive – when a family moves in.
..after the “lumber” had been neatly stacked on the lot, and before the carpenters can “breathe life” into it, we’ll just run it through this-here chipper, and…
Viola!
No house!
<
p>
I feel better already.
And yet the Old Testament penalty for causing a miscarriage is different from the Old Testament penalty for causing a death. Curious.
i wish more men (and women!) would at least try to get an idea of what it may be like if they were a woman walking in there with a purpose. he can at least get a sense of the intensity of the situation, and will feel the stress his wife or female friend is feeling even though they are there just to walk in a door and nothing more. i’ve been to PP many times, but never for an abortion and never when protesters were present. and yet, the experience of seeing the painted lines, having to persuade the guard that i’m legit and entering through those high security double doors left quite an impression on me.
<
p>
the important thing to remember for any escort on such a dry run is not to permit yourself to assume that if the experience doesn’t affect you, that it should be of no concern to women walking through. because what dcshol wrote above it true. you must be prepared to take womens’ word for it, even if it is incongruous with your personal experience.
the difference is that I won’t be receiving it the same, since as you note, I won’t be at the incredibly difficult and stressful crossroads of choosing whether or not to abort.
<
p>
Will it feel the same? Of course not. I never claimed it would. Will the pro-lifers act the same? Sure — they won’t know it’s a fugazi.
They are against buffer zones.
<
p>
“Predictably, the anti-abortion crowd is crying foul and claiming an infringement of their First Amendment rights.”
that is their claim for all occasions. up the dog license fee $5 and just wait – they’ll find a way to link it to 1st amendment rights. they may have to use gum and glitter to make the “connection”, but they always do.
<
p>
they’re all for federal and state protections on the basis of religious belief (can’t get fired for it, etc.), but if you try to protect any other category of citizen, watch out! apparently they and only they have sole claim to the 1st amendment.
<
p>
if you want examples, read around MassResistance or Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality or any of the current hater pages.
I struggle with the buffer zone issue as the pro-choice and pro-First Amendment/Union rights sides of my emotions conflict here.
<
p>
Being pro-choice and having years ago helped escort patients through ant-choice groups into a Brookline medical facility (I never played a big role, was just a volunteer), I find myself supporting expanded the buffer zone because I am offended by the idea of one person “protesting” the medical decision of another person. It is a highly personal decision and the concept of a woman being made to walk a gauntlet to receive a medical proceedure cries out for an increased level of protection.
<
p>
On the flip side, as a union member I am often involved in picket lines and protests. I stand on the public sidewalk in front of a store or a construction site to provide information to the general public about an unfair or irresponsible employer. I walk strike lines where I confront scabs taking a striking workers job. THat right to public protest is often at the heart of what portects workers.
<
p>
Hard as the emotional struggle is, in the end I have to oppose the buffer zone bill because it is a slipery slope concept. It limits the right to protest (and please, I know there are already limits on that right – I mean we don’t need another one).
<
p>
For me the buffer zone bills feels like the left’s version of Bush’s laws to wiretap and limit US citizens rights in the Homeland security act. It can be argued as well intentioned and necessary to “protect” citizens. but it still limits freedom for each of us.
<
p>
To protect rights we need to fight for them. If 20 protesters are there then 100 advocates should be standing in front of them.
<
p>
As a personal note – as a man I feel very uncomfortable taking an opposing position on an issue that affects the health choices of only women but . . .
<
p>
In the end the buffer zone bill is another step in limiting rights and I find that I – sadly – oppose it.
… that the state’s interest in access to health care (or the voting booth) is different fundamentally from access to some other less ‘vital’ service. On that basis you could justify differing distances, couldn’t you?
The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law [abridging] the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”
<
p>
Seems pretty clear.
<
p>
Of course, Courts got into the balancing act, with advocates of various causes arguing that we’re not trying to stop anti-abortionists from protesting, we’re merely trying to allow access to an otherwise legal health procedure.
<
p>
I don’t feel it’s a proper analogy between regulation of a voting day crowd (i.e. one day, reasonable buffer to deal with voting day traffic) and wide buffer zones around abortion clinics (i.e. everyday with no significant traffic to regulate).
<
p>
Besides, give me a break, how coy can a court be to rule that the buffer zone outside an abortion clinic is content neutral?! We all know it’s not content neutral in practice. It’s not likely PETA is going to rally outside an abortion clinic anytime soon.
<
p>
So advocates now push the boundary from 18 to 36 feet. If that works (in the courts) they’ll push for 50 feet. At some point if the boundary creep continues, the advocates will have silenced the protestors, and regardless, if content neutral or not, even “content neutral” enforced silence means less public expression. And that’s wrong.
… I’ll let the lawyers address this one (although much of it has already been addressed above).
First of all, election day buffer zones have nothing to do with crowd control. It’s about not being intimidated on the way to the polls. I’ve seen campaign workers in violation of this law creating a gauntlet that voters have to go through to cast a ballot for the other guy.
<
p>
Also, this legislation is not just about distance. It’s about clarity and enforceability. The current law, as anyone who has watched the protesters knows, is never followed and is far too ambiguous to enforce. There’s a supposed 6 foot “bubble zone” around individuals that doesn’t exist if someone gives “consent” to be approached. What constitutes consent? Your guess is as good as mine. Eye contact? A smile? A nod? It clearly doesn’t matter, as protesters outside of the Brighton PP clinic routinely pace directly in front of the door, approach (and even touch) patients entering the facility, and the police present to keep the peace know full well there’s nothing they can do about it. They occasionally give warnings, but there hasn’t been a single violation of the law prosecuted in 7 years because of the ambiguity (thank you Mr. Finneran).
<
p>
The SCOTUS case (Berson v. Freeman) that found election day buffers were constitutional affirmed the local court that there was a compelling state interest in i) prevention of fraud ii) traffic control and iii) prevention of voter intimidation. Crowd control was an aspect of the regulation, but, as strict scrutiny applies to content specific speech, and the reason of crowd control alone wasn’t and shouldn’t be enough.
<
p>
In the abortion cases the SCOTUS is too clever by half. It has tailered its 1st amendment cases to fit its abortion position.
<
p>
Consider, that for some reason, speech outside of polling places is thought by the Court to be “content specific” but in Madsen v Women’s Health Center the Court found speech outside of abortion clinics to be content neutral. (Wink, wink. We know politics is being argued outside polling places, but who knows what is being picketed outside abortion clinics?)
<
p>
Speech outside of a designated political location will necessarily involve politics. Although abortion is a political issue, it is, first and foremost, a health issue. And let’s face it, the mental image of some wacko screaming in the face of a 17 year-old girl as she walks into a clinic is not one the USC is (or was) inclined to legally support.
That is like saying the protests outside a prison before or during a scheduled execution are really about health issues. Of course it is a throughly politicized and political situation.
To you and me, and probably everyone on these boards, abortion is a political issue. But, if you are someone who NEEDS an abortion, it’s not a political issue. It’s a uterus issue.
<
p>
Contrast that with Gary’s “polling place” example. A polling place is a political location no matter who you are.
You’re regulating people engaged in political speech, and targeting a specific position for regulation.
<
p>
You may remember it: “bad facts make bad laws”
No, I don’t remember that saying. To be frank, I hated all “law school sayings.” All I’m saying is let’s not pretend the whole point of these laws, whether you agree with them or not, isn’t that they’re designed to keep protesters away from people seeking medical attention.
Yeah, but there’s the bad fact that judicially created the abortion Buffer.
<
p>
You take a sympathetic woman, making a difficult decision, having a difficult time getting to a clinic because of all the ‘free speech’ in her path.
<
p>
A justice looked at a Constitution. It says the State must have a “compelling” reason to ban or buffer a person with a sign that reads “baby killer”.
<
p>
A wink and a nod, the Justice says the statute is “content neutral” and not simply directed at anti-abortionists. That ruling means the State now doesn’t need a compelling reason, but rather, the State can regulate reasonably.
<
p>
That ruling pushed the picketers back 18 feet so the young woman–in the interest of her health choice (probably not a compelling state interest BTW, but I’d be interested if you believe otherwise)–doesn’t have to confront the message or the messengers.
<
p>
I’m going to watch the Red Sox game. I’ll take more of a look at this when I get back later.
Aren’t there other ways to keep people from screaming in the face of girls? Couldn’t they have allowed cops to arrest people for intimidation if they cross a line of acceptability, rather than a line of paint?
<
p>
The problem with the 150 foot buffer zones is that only the big name, media supported candidates can get a big enough organization to stand at every designated “standing area” around the perimeter of a voting place. And the lone sign holder for the blacked-out candidate has to choose one of the four possible places, thereby missing out on one fourth of the voters that are all entering the same building through the same door. Could “crowd control” be handled by saying people supporting the same candidate can’t stand within 20 feet of each other? That would seen to get to the point of what constitutes a “crowd”.
…1971-76. The way it was put in the middle ages was “hard cases make for bad law.” A bit of a difference in text, but a real difference in meaning.
…you obviously know that 1st amendment jurisprudence makes it clear that government can make reasonable time, place and manner limitations on speach, as long as the limitations are content neutral.
<
p>
Anti-abortion militants do not necessarily have a constitutional right to intimidate those women who are seeking access to womens’ health clinics, any more than pro-choice militants who might be cheering the women on to exercise their right to choose. That is the entire point of “content neutrality.”
<
p>
Quite frankly, I would not have a problem if the anti-abortion militants and the pro-choice militants were sent to pens far away from the entrances of womens’ health clinics, much like what happened with the protesters at the 2004 presidential nomination conventions. Neither side in the abortion discussion has the right to intimidate people who are seeking access to womens’ health clinics, which is precisely what they are doing.
<
p>
What does that singular issue have to do with my right to peacefully assemble/speak outside the DNC, instead of 2 blocks away inside a metal cage?
Similar analysis. In order to prevail with the designated “free speech zone”, the State had to show i) “content neutral” speech was being regulated (i.e. all protestors banned from certain public areas) and a reasonable State interest in the regulation.
<
p>
The State interest articulated to regulate the protest areas was that of personal protection of officials.
<
p>
The issue I’ve raised is this: is the regulation of protesters outside an abortion clinic “content neutral”? I maintain, it is not.
<
p>
SCOTUS disagrees with me. Oh well.
It’s to stifle messages that aren’t the media’s messages. It’s to make it harder to get independent messages to people at the one place where it is feasible to reach the people that have only heard the media’s or government’s messages so far.
…Government is allowed to establish reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech, provided that the restrictions are content neutral.
<
p>
Your DNC issue is a bit obscure. The 1st amendment gives “the people” the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for the redress of grievances. As far as I can tell, the DNC is not the government. Irrespective of that, if there is a statute that might apply, let’s take a look at it. If it is content neutral, it’s probably constitutional. You might not like that, but you do have an out: work to get the statute repealed.
Contrast between two statutes, one a law that prohibits picketing i)within a 100 foot buffer of a polling location with ii) a law that prohibits picketing within an 18 foot buffer of an abortion clinic.
<
p>
Supreme Court found that the 1st was speech-specific regulation, requiring a compelling state interest in order to regulate and the latter content neutral, which the state can more easily regulate.
<
p>
I think it’s pretty clear, in practice and even from discussion in this thread, that the regulation outside abortion clinics is aimed at reducing speech by anti-abortion protesters, and is therefore hardly content neutral.
…You would prefer that US SupCt have mandated a similar buffer zone for protesting both sets of issues. Be careful what you wish for. Channeling Ev Dirksen, a thousand feet here and a thousand feet there, and eventually you’ll have a universe.
<
p>
For those who are interested, the opinions in the cases cited by gary (which he circumspectly failed to cite) are at Burson v. Freeman and Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc
Quoting you, “obviously, you can’t read.”
<
p>
<
p>
I never said nor implied nor wished for, anything of the sort. I merely pointed out the lack of conformity between election day Buffer statute and abortion clinic buffer statutes and the apparent incongruity between the two in SCOTUS case analysis.
<
p>
I said, the abortion statutes that allow for a buffer is based on the speech regulated being “content neutral”. It ain’t. It’s regulation designed to mitigate one message: anti-abortion speech.
I merely pointed out the lack of conformity between election day Buffer statute and abortion clinic buffer statutes and the apparent incongruity between the two in SCOTUS case analysis.
<
p>
If the relevant statutes provided for a buffer of 5280 feet (a statute mile) for any speech related to a particular time and place, you would be satisfied. Correct?
<
p>
Doubtful. So let’s work backward from there.