General Discussion

eomer

(3,845 posts)

62. It's more complicated than that.

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 09:30 AM

Jun 2014

It was the combination of the size of the buffer zone with the nature of the prohibitions.

The Supreme Court pointed toward a Federal law and some specific laws of other states and municipalities as examples that Massachusetts could model a solution after. Those other laws all have significantly different (lesser) prohibitions than the Massachusetts law did, which prohibited all speech within the buffer zone.

So it seems unlikely that Massachusetts would try to keep their same law by changing to a smaller perimeter than 35 feet. They will likely need to try something more substantially different to pass muster.

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