Mass. abortion clinic buffer zone law struck down

[applecorped]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...er-zone-law/VTTYHYD8oiVJJNreAPyKAN/story.html

9-0 ruling. Free speech concern the basis for the ruling.

"The nation’s highest court today struck down a Massachusetts law that created buffer zones around abortion clinics in an attempt to prevent confrontations over the controversial issue.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the state law violated the First Amendment, restricting access to public ways and sidewalks, places that are traditionally open for free debate. The government’s ability to regulate speech in such areas is limited, the justices said in a unanimous decision.
“The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests,” the court said."


Correct.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I wonder if the Supreme Court justices would like to experience the same sort of treatment on the sidewalk outside their court?

 

[applecorped]

I wonder if the Supreme Court justices would like to experience the same sort of treatment on the sidewalk outside their court?

Free speech? Yes, I'm sure they would.

 

[jj]

Free speech? Yes, I'm sure they would.

Horsefeathers, whoever tried to picket the court from where they get out of their ride to the court would get arrested in a flash, and would probably just disappear.

Note the relevant phrasing, please, of WHERE the picketing would have to occur.

Until full, absolute equity is established, and the justices have to walk through people telling them they are going to hell, spitting on them, blocking their path, calling them murderers, babykillers, jezibels, etc, there is no equity in your absurd comparison.

 

[applecorped]

Horsefeathers, whoever tried to picket the court from where they get out of their ride to the court would get arrested in a flash, and would probably just disappear.

Note the relevant phrasing, please, of WHERE the picketing would have to occur.

Until full, absolute equity is established, and the justices have to walk through people telling them they are going to hell, spitting on them, blocking their path, calling them murderers, babykillers, jezibels, etc, there is no equity in your absurd comparison.

Butthurt much?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Butthurt much?

Ahh, there's the sweet sound of reasoned discourse these threads so often lead to.

 

[applecorped]

Liberal Scotus judges support free speech. Good times.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder how many will die because of this decision, after all, Massachusetts made the law in reaction to antiabortionists violent actions.

 

[casebro]

Weren't those violent actions already illegal?

 

[casebro]

Gee, where is the suit re: the "Free Speech Zones" at the party national conventions? 9-0. anybody?

 

[jj]

Gee, where is the suit re: the "Free Speech Zones" at the party national conventions? 9-0. anybody?

Really good question, that. I wonder if we will see "on the sidewalk next to the convention center" picketing at the upcoming GOP convention? Or will it be 10 blocks away, with the "free speech individuals" held captive involuntarily and without judicial recourse on threat of being shot and the press banned from coming within 3 blocks like last time?

 

[Fizil]

It is a good ruling, even if I do think the abortion clinic protesters are a bunch of asshats, here is hoping that it will extend to "Free Speech Zones" as well, a true affront to our free speech right.

 

[Tony]

I would encourage the women and their families who need abortions or healthcare to stand their ground against the zealots and terrorists who would stand in their way.

 

[This is The End]

Serious question:

Does this mean that there is also no buffer zone for the protesters?

That is, are counter-protesters now free to stand right next to the protesters and yell at them (or whatever it is the protesters are doing at the women)?

 

[Puppycow]

Funny that the Supreme Court has its own protest buffer zone, which is much larger:

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/584668...-court-have-a-protest-buffer-zone-if-abortion

Earlier today, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law creating a 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics that protestors have to stay away from. Pro-choice groups unhappy with the decision have noted that the Justices themselves recognize the value of a little buffer zone and have in fact created a much larger one outside their own workplace.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would encourage the women and their families who need abortions or healthcare to stand their ground against the zealots and terrorists who would stand in their way.

Massachusetts doesn't have that interpretation of self defense. And I doubt it would fly in southern states with those laws.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Funny that the Supreme Court has its own protest buffer zone, which is much larger:

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/584668...-court-have-a-protest-buffer-zone-if-abortion

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/0...gulation-banning-protests-on-marble-plaza.php

The US Supreme Court on Thursday issued a new regulation barring any demonstration within the Supreme Court building or grounds, excluding the surrounding sidewalks, if the activity is "reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers."

So, they have the same sidewalk 'exemption'.

It does appear at first glance to be a double standard, but I don't think it's quite apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[Kestrel]

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/0...gulation-banning-protests-on-marble-plaza.php

The US Supreme Court on Thursday issued a new regulation barring any demonstration within the Supreme Court building or grounds, excluding the surrounding sidewalks, if the activity is "reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers."

So, they have the same sidewalk 'exemption'.

It does appear at first glance to be a double standard, but I don't think it's quite apples-to-apples comparison.

The Supreme Court building is more like a palace than a health clinic. The massive marble plaza and steps in front of the building were once considered public space, but is now a no free speach zone.

ETA: I suspect the justices are disconnected from reality on this issue. The protests in Massachusetts were a lot more like a brawl than free speech.

 

[Ziggurat]

Horsefeathers, whoever tried to picket the court from where they get out of their ride to the court would get arrested in a flash, and would probably just disappear.

Yup, those Supreme Court ninjas assassins gestapo clerks will kill you and dump your body in the Potomac at the slightest provocation.

Until full, absolute equity is established, and the justices have to walk through people telling them they are going to hell, spitting on them, blocking their path, calling them murderers, babykillers, jezibels, etc, there is no equity in your absurd comparison.

Spitting on people is illegal. It's assault. Nothing about this ruling makes it legal. Furthermore, from the link in the OP:

Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office defended the law in arguments before the court, said the decision left intact part of the law banning deliberate obstruction of clinic entrances.​

So all we're left with in your whining is, well, speech. And yes, the SC justices have to put up with hostile and offensive speech in public, just like the rest of us.

Your objection is hysterical and irrational.

 

[Kestrel]

Serious question:

Does this mean that there is also no buffer zone for the protesters?

That is, are counter-protesters now free to stand right next to the protesters and yell at them (or whatever it is the protesters are doing at the women)?

Massachusetts used to have a law that required protesters to stay so many feet away from patients or clinic workers. The protestors got around this by standing shoulder to shoulder blocking the clinic door. The buffer law did not apply if the patient approached the protester.