General Discussion

MH1

(19,170 posts)

16. And, if the SC agrees with you, then that is WHY a buffer zone is needed

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 11:02 AM

Jun 2014

in certain circumstances.

From what I have read about the decision, they left the door open for more narrowly defined buffer zones. My own theory is that there is a need to justify the restriction on ~~"free speech"~~ freedom to harass, and that it must be "temporary" (meaning the need for the zone must be reviewed periodically). I think given the history of violence against clinics and the vulnerable state of patients, that should be doable with regard to reproductive clinics.

I guess I am only lamenting that we don't have the common courtesy in this country that would make this whole thing unnecessary.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does the First Amendment protect someone's "right" to speak to me in public? To get in my face? [View all] MH1 Jun 2014 OP

Harrassment, and obstructing the sidewalk, are still illegal. Nye Bevan Jun 2014 #1

They have the 1st Amendment right to speak, but not to demand my acknowledgement. MH1 Jun 2014 #6

In theory, sure they are. nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #53

I'm with the "it's harassment" and should be treated as such. Like Westboro Baptist KittyWampus Jun 2014 #60

Who decides when a 35 foot buffer zone is applied? badtoworse Jun 2014 #2

That's the interesting question of the decision. MH1 Jun 2014 #8

The 35 foot zone was ruled illegal. former9thward Jun 2014 #46

I recall that this was lauded by many as free speech Dreamer Tatum Jun 2014 #3

What is that? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #4

There is widespread misunderstanding of free speech rights, even on DU Dreamer Tatum Jun 2014 #7

It looks pretty straightforward to me. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #9

I believe the 100' buffer pertains more to car bombs than free speech zones. IronGate Jun 2014 #12

There certainly are concrete barriers to prevent cars entering Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #18

You could very well be right. IronGate Jun 2014 #23

I probably wasn't one of those "many". MH1 Jun 2014 #13

That protestor was harassing Condalezza Rice csziggy Jun 2014 #42

I can't imagine Sec. Rice was too terribly inconvenienced by the woman's behavior. nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #55

The comparison SHOULD be that the protestor was arrested csziggy Jun 2014 #63

And that protester was shown the door... ljm2002 Jun 2014 #43

"Yes" is the answer to the question you asked in the title of your OP. Kaleva Jun 2014 #5

I presume you mean the first question. What about the 2nd - "get in my face"? MH1 Jun 2014 #10

"Yes" to that part of the question too. Kaleva Jun 2014 #11

Well, that's where I have a problem with the interpretation of the 1st Amend. MH1 Jun 2014 #14

Does your interpretation include the Capital Singers? forthemiddle Jun 2014 #21

I'm not aware of the details. MH1 Jun 2014 #27

And, if the SC agrees with you, then that is WHY a buffer zone is needed MH1 Jun 2014 #16

You are bringing up my experiences at that Planned Parenthood Building HockeyMom Jun 2014 #19

It looks like buffer zones are still legal. Kaleva Jun 2014 #20

Good HockeyMom Jun 2014 #22

35 foot zones are illegal. former9thward Jun 2014 #47

It's more complicated than that. eomer Jun 2014 #62

There is no 'right to not be bothered'. X_Digger Jun 2014 #15

There was something about the "pursuit of happiness" somewhere. MH1 Jun 2014 #24

You're free to pursue it, there's no right to succeed. X_Digger Jun 2014 #41

Of course they do! That is a FUNDAMENTAL principle of the First Amendment. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #17

I have canvassed by knocking on doors. That's different than accosting someone on the street, MH1 Jun 2014 #25

Now those words make sense. ananda Jun 2014 #26

Thank you! MH1 Jun 2014 #29

Of course they do LittleBlue Jun 2014 #28

At 2 am in the suburbs, they'd probably be arrested for creating a disturbance. MH1 Jun 2014 #30

No one's right to free speech is unlimited LittleBlue Jun 2014 #32

Nearly every right is limited... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #33

How about Sunday mornings during church? csziggy Jun 2014 #44

So much for those protest zones designed to keep protesters away from Bush. L0oniX Jun 2014 #31

Aren't there laws against harassing and intimidating people in public if they do not tblue37 Jun 2014 #34

That's kind of where I started with my musing about this. But, here's the thing ... MH1 Jun 2014 #35

"Why do people have to be assholes in the first place?" Good question. alp227 Jun 2014 #45

People exercising their First Amendment Rights at Abortion Clinics??? 90-percent Jun 2014 #36

+1 nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #56

If a person does not have a "right" to speak in public sarisataka Jun 2014 #37

Scalia's "argument" is nonsense....and shows that his not a jurist, but a fucking scumbag ideologue ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2014 #38

I don't think the vulture capitalist is on Wall Street for a debate either but I think we should be TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #40

A person's health/medical care is nobody else's business. ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2014 #48

It isn't but medical facilities are on public streets, some are public places themselves. TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #51

You're right rock Jun 2014 #39

^^this^^ freshwest Jun 2014 #52

without physically Niceguy1 Jun 2014 #49

In this situation, use the Tweety Method treestar Jun 2014 #50

Great points, MH1! thank you. Cha Jun 2014 #54

I suppose there are as many defacto7 Jun 2014 #57

The obvious solution to this... Spider Jerusalem Jun 2014 #58

wouldn't prevent anything. The sidewalk in front of your suburban yard is public. KittyWampus Jun 2014 #61

G8? Political Conventions? Supreme Court? Rules for them and for us. kickysnana Jun 2014 #59

I have been that random stranger who approached a person on the sidewalk DawgHouse Jun 2014 #64