Supreme Court strikes down 'exclusion zones' around abortion clinics.

[justicar5]

The SCOTUS has struck down the 35ft buffer zone around abortion clinics, while maintaining the 'free speech zones' around politicians and itself, which are far greater, the message is clear: if you are powerless you can be intimidated and assaulted with no protection under law, well my answer, the darling of the right :Stand Your Ground, the next time some one is shoved, screamed at and spat on by these 'pro-life' protesters (a movement responsible for hundreds of deaths over the years, millions of dollars in damage to property and countless assaults) Open fire, you are under imminent danger of serious physical harm, pull a gun, and like so many pardoned for blowing away confused grand fathers, lost kids, etc etc, you will get off scot free, or will you? Could it be that the right in this case would scream for prosecution? Could it be that a violent Christian thug is worth more than a person simple guilty of 'walking while black?'

(CNN) -- The Supreme Court on narrow grounds struck down a Massachusetts law Thursday creating no-protest "buffer zones" on public property surrounding health clinics that perform abortions.
In what is a free speech dispute that touched on the larger political and social controversy over abortion, the court ruled unanimously.
It did not strike down all such laws, but the ruling gives room for the state to go back and craft new, less restrictive protest zones.
"Here the commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes."
Massachusetts officials said the issue was more about public safety and pedestrian access on local sidewalks. Anti-abortion supporters countered that their First Amendment rights were violated.
The decision could affect a broader range of free speech areas -- over issues such as war, taxes, corporate bailouts and elections -- where the location of the message is often key to its effectiveness.
Eleven women's health clinics across Massachusetts are covered by the fixed buffer zones.
The current state law strengthened earlier restrictions that had created a floating 6-foot protective bubble around clinic patrons approaching the facility.
Abortion rights supporters said it was ineffective, since they claimed it led to blocked entrances and a gauntlet of protesters surrounding patients and staff.
Some past anti-abortion protests have turned violent in the United States.
The state's 2007 revised "selective exclusion law" makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic "employees or agents ... acting within the scope of their employment" to "enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk" within 35 feet of "a reproductive health care facility."

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/26/ju...-buffer-zones/

[Vanoi]

You didn't even read the decision. SCOTUS only struck down the 35ft buffer zone law. You can still have buffer zones at abortion clinics. Just not 35ft ones.

[justicar5]

You didn't even read the decision. SCOTUS only struck down the 35ft buffer zone law. You can still have buffer zones at abortion clinics. Just not 35ft ones.

I didm, they previously had a 6 ft exclusion zone, so people got pelted, again the answer to this terrorist movement is simple Stand Your Ground, refuse to be powerless, your sig says it all about the prolife movement.

[Vanoi]

I didm, they previously had a 6 ft exclusion zone, so people got pelted, again the answer to this terrorist movement is simple Stand Your Ground, refuse to be powerless, your sig says it all about the prolife movement.

If your getting pelted, then those protesters are breaking the law. Thats what police are for. SCOTUS did not say they couldn't extend the buffer zone past 6ft. It just can't be 35ft.

[justicar5]

If your getting pelted, then those protsters are breaking the law. Thats what police are for. SCOTUS did not say they couldn't extend the buffer zone past 6ft. It just can't be 35ft.

Then the other aspect comes up: this does not strike down exclusion zones (or rather the literal caging) of protesters at presidential visits, national conventions, the massive exclusion zone around the supreme court etc etc.

But seriously, if this had been a left wing cause outside a bank HQ do you truly believe that this decision would have been made? The police refuse to do their jobs, refuse to call this what it is: Domestic Terror, so the harassment and assaults continue, day in, day out.

[Vanoi]

Then the other aspect comes up: this does not strike down exclusion zones (or rather the literal caging) of protesters at presidential visits, national conventions, the massive exclusion zone around the supreme court etc etc.

Massive exclusion zone around the Supreme Court? What are you reading? Because the exclusion zone at the Supreme Court only applies to the grounds and the building. Abortion clinics have a bigger buffer zone than the Supreme Court does.

And you are comparing apples and oranges.

But seriously, if this had been a left wing cause outside a bank HQ do you truly believe that this decision would have been made? The police refuse to do their jobs, refuse to call this what it is: Domestic Terror, so the harassment and assaults continue, day in, day out.

Domestic terror? If someone attacks you at an abortion clinics, they have broken the law. Call the police. And are you claiming police refuse to protect people being attacked at abortion clinics? Cause that claim needs some evidence.

[Sphere]

For the case in question, I think there were two abortion clinics in Massachusetts that had serious protest problems, but they passed a law creating 35ft "No free speech" zones around each and every clinic.

Any law criminalizing the political speech (which is at the heart of the 1st Amendment) must be evaluated under legal "strict scrutiny". The government must show both a legitimate and urgent need for the law, and show that it is "narrowly tailored" to address the problem while doing the least amount of harm to 1st Amendment rights.

This was a unanimous decision on the grounds that this particular law wasn't "narrowly tailored". The zones were too big and they weren't really needed at every abortion clinic in the state.

A victory for 1st Amendment rights in my opinion.

[Col. Tartleton]

An exclusion zone isn't going to stop violence or terrorism which are already illegal. An exclusion zone exists purely to limit free speech.

Abortion isn't going to go away. Not here in MA. No amount of pathetic protesting will do that. If a woman can't get an abortion because people might see her going into the clinic and make her feel like she's doing something wrong she shouldn't get one. If she feels she's in the right she shouldn't be bothered by them.

How terrorism is dealt with inside and outside of the united states is obviously going to be different. The FBI can't coordinate air strikes on suspects. The CIA can. Welcome to our divisions between the police and military.

[IronBrig4]

Hey, I agree with your sentiment. The problem with a 35-foot exclusion zone is it places undue burdens on people expressing themselves. Do I think the pro-life protesters are mentally ill? Of course. Would I be broken up if somebody "stands their ground" and shoots them right in the crucifix? No, not really. But these protesters are within their rights.

[Col. Tartleton]

I mean if I call a woman a slut 40 feet away from the abortion clinic its fine, I'm just some ass, but if its within 35 feet she might think I'm protesting her abortion and get me arrested.

[justicar5]

I mean if I call a woman a slut 40 feet away from the abortion clinic its fine, I'm just some ass, but if its within 35 feet she might think I'm protesting her abortion and get me arrested.

If you are two feet away screaming abuse, blocking her way etc..that was what this is designed to stop. If the SCOTUS wont act, then stand your ground will have to do. Not ideal, but at least in heaven they can bother god directly.

[Col. Tartleton]

If you are two feet away screaming abuse, blocking her way etc..that was what this is designed to stop. If the SCOTUS wont act, then stand your ground will have to do. Not ideal, but at least in heaven they can bother god directly.

Fairly sure that'd be an assault which is already illegal.

I'm a believer in applying the most basic laws properly rather than making new laws. Constantly legislating laws in and out of existence to solve problems which can be dealt with under different statutes undermines the constancy and consistency of the rule of law.

If the current laws are not being enforced properly we need to work on improving enforcement and that's an executive issue, not creating new laws which still won't be enforced properly because the enforcers are incompetent.

[Himster]

Fairly sure that'd be an assault which is already illegal.

It's surprisingly hard to prosecute an angry mob.
Oh wait, that's not surprising.

[Symphony]

I mean if I call a woman a slut 40 feet away from the abortion clinic its fine, I'm just some ass, but if its within 35 feet she might think I'm protesting her abortion and get me arrested.

This cuts both ways. At 34 feet, people will understand that I'm protesting abortion, but at 40 feet, they may not know what I'm protesting? This makes no more sense than justicar's "two feet" hyperbole.

For what it's worth, I agree with the ruling in principle; 35 feet is an arbitrary designation that doesn't have a substantive difference from a 10-foot, 20-foot, or even 40-foot distance, and does not substantively address or prevent genuine criminal acts aimed at abortion clinics or their patrons. All it accomplishes is giving a few legislators the warm fuzzy that they've "accomplished something", and serves only to criminalize protected speech (like another poster, I disagree rather vehemently with the protesters, but free speech is free speech).

Arguing the distance in either direction is missing the point entirely.

[justicar5]

This cuts both ways. At 34 feet, people will understand that I'm protesting abortion, but at 40 feet, they may not know what I'm protesting? This makes no more sense than justicar's "two feet" hyperbole.

For what it's worth, I agree with the ruling in principle; 35 feet is an arbitrary designation that doesn't have a substantive difference from a 10-foot, 20-foot, or even 40-foot distance, and does not substantively address or prevent genuine criminal acts aimed at abortion clinics or their patrons. All it accomplishes is giving a few legislators the warm fuzzy that they've "accomplished something", and serves only to criminalize protected speech (like another poster, I disagree rather vehemently with the protesters, but free speech is free speech).

Arguing the distance in either direction is missing the point entirely.

It is not hyperbole, it is what the protesters are their for, to scream the hate the bible contains at vulnerable people so they can get their sexual kicks out of the terror they cause. Like every chrisitan on earth really.

[Symphony]

It is not hyperbole, it is what the protesters are their for

In this case, it most certainly is. Not in the sense that none of them do it (of course they do; we've all seen the footage of it happening), but in the sense that nobody has said they're free to do it. The decision specifically mentioned "alternatives" for a reason, and in no way, shape, or form stated that the kind of two-foot intimidation you're referring to is legal. You know this, and jumped from 35 feet to 2 feet to get an emotional, visceral reaction. Effective maybe, but absolutely hyperbolic.

In the meantime, though, feel like addressing the rest of the post? Can you tell me how a 35-foot, marginally enforced exclusion zone is substantively more effective than a 15-foot zone? Can you tell me how either is effective at stopping violence against abortion clinics and their patrons?

[sumskilz]

You know this, and jumped from 35 feet to 2 feet to get an emotional, visceral reaction. Effective maybe, but absolutely hyperbolic.

Well he did follow it up by claiming that every Christian on earth gets their sexual kicks by causing terror, which seems like a balanced position.

[justicar5]

In this case, it most certainly is. Not in the sense that none of them do it (of course they do; we've all seen the footage of it happening), but in the sense that nobody has said they're free to do it. The decision specifically mentioned "alternatives" for a reason, and in no way, shape, or form stated that the kind of two-foot intimidation you're referring to is legal. You know this, and jumped from 35 feet to 2 feet to get an emotional, visceral reaction. Effective maybe, but absolutely hyperbolic.

In the meantime, though, feel like addressing the rest of the post? Can you tell me how a 35-foot, marginally enforced exclusion zone is substantively more effective than a 15-foot zone? Can you tell me how either is effective at stopping violence against abortion clinics and their patrons?

It is a more difficult pistol shot. Not impossible, but slightly more difficult. This doesn't stop people coming inside ofc, but makes them law breakers if they do, and the clinic guards would be watching them, hopefully with an auto-shotgun.

[Condottiere 40K]

These things go in cycles.

I expect that when the Muslims in America start flexing their religious sentiments, the court will go remarkably secular.

[justicar5]

These things go in cycles.

I expect that when the Muslims in America start flexing their religious sentiments, the court will go remarkably secular.

true.

I mean look at how the occupy protesters were treated as opposed to these guys, wave an occupy placard? Tear gas grenade to the face at point blank...wave an image of an aborted foetus? No cops in sight.