Latest Breaking News

NYC Liberal

(20,453 posts)

42. We agree. And SCOTUS is saying that you have the right to stand outside

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:13 PM

Jun 2014

a clinic to hand out literature and a blanket "buffer zone" infringes on that. You can't tell everyone to stay 35 feet away even before they've done anything b

They allow states to enforce laws against harassment or intimidation (or make new ones). It's just that those laws have to be specific. The law the struck down was too broad.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court strikes down abortion clinic buffer zone [View all] NYC Liberal Jun 2014 OP

Except we've seen what those "pro-life" protesters do, and to heck with being arrested. Archae Jun 2014 #1

Yes, we must have only polite and civil protests. Psephos Jun 2014 #45

The one win I wanted Martha to have this year. iandhr Jun 2014 #2

I disagree harassment has to be proven by the accuser, does it not? davidpdx Jun 2014 #3

I have to disagree..... daleanime Jun 2014 #4

The anti-choice loons will have a field day BumRushDaShow Jun 2014 #5

They can still have restrictions. Just not broad, blanket ones. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #15

So now the pro choice side--including me--needs to mobilize. maddogesq Jun 2014 #20

This is the correct response. n/t Psephos Jun 2014 #46

What's the buffer zone around Kagan when she speaks? GeorgeGist Jun 2014 #6

I couldn't disagree with you more........ Swede Atlanta Jun 2014 #7

+1 davidpdx Jun 2014 #10

Commentary from SCOTUS Blog: NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #12

I want to read the opinion myself..... Swede Atlanta Jun 2014 #16

The ruling fails to acknowledge... Orsino Jun 2014 #28

Or have counter protestors similar to those who shut down Westboro csziggy Jun 2014 #26

Yes. That is what needs to be done. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #48

Exactly - provide our own buffers to take the harassment csziggy Jun 2014 #49

+2 Demeter Jun 2014 #38

Says the court that won't allow cameras to broadcast and record their mischief. GeorgeGist Jun 2014 #8

Everything at the SC is recorded. former9thward Jun 2014 #11

And domestic terrorists rejoiced... nt onehandle Jun 2014 #9

terrorists davidpdx Jun 2014 #13

The Dancing Supremes are all pretending these anti-choice fanatics aren't a pack of murderers fasttense Jun 2014 #36

The zone has nothing to do with free speech... Orsino Jun 2014 #14

Can you hand out literature from 35 feet away? NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #17

One has no right to hand out literature. Thor_MN Jun 2014 #19

That's absurd. Of course they do. It's one of the fundamental protections of the NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #23

Sorry bad choice of words. Thor_MN Jun 2014 #27

Yes but they have the right to offer it. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #34

The court has already upheld an 8 foot restriction. Thor_MN Jun 2014 #37

Yes I think there is a reasonableness aspect to it. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #41

You can easily hand out literature from 35 feet away. Orsino Jun 2014 #25

Hard decision. One has the right to free speech, but no right to force others to listen. Thor_MN Jun 2014 #18

Free speech doesn't just include talking. It includes handing out literature, petitions, etc. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #22

Free Speech does not include forcing people to listen Thor_MN Jun 2014 #30

Of course no one has to take it. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #32

Of course one has the right to offer it, but they have no right to force it upon a person Thor_MN Jun 2014 #35

We agree. And SCOTUS is saying that you have the right to stand outside NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #42

For the most part. But we apparently disagree on how far the right to distribute literature extends. Thor_MN Jun 2014 #43

The problem is that anti-choice protesters murder and bomb people fasttense Jun 2014 #39

Does this also apply to Westboro Church? invrabbit Jun 2014 #50

Of course it does, part of what makes it difficult. Thor_MN Jun 2014 #53

I disagree with the court liberals or dems Robbins Jun 2014 #21

but Roberts approved the same restriction on the Supreme Court.... hypocrite tomm2thumbs Jun 2014 #24

Yup. Protection for me, not for thee. SunSeeker Jun 2014 #51

Stand Your Ground laws may work in our favor LannyDeVaney Jun 2014 #29

Where are the rights of privacy of the individual going to see their doctor? That is how I see it. lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #31

This is what happens when you have no ovulating women on the Supreme Court. SunSeeker Jun 2014 #52

Obviously I agree with your assessment lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #54

And if you feel threatened, you can shoot the protesters. Remember to bring your gun valerief Jun 2014 #33

You forgot the sarcasm tag. ManiacJoe Jun 2014 #56

Please. It's obviously sarcasm. Hence, the New World Order. nt valerief Jun 2014 #57

And to agree with this decision is COMPLETE AND TOTAL BULLSHIT. NT onehandle Jun 2014 #40

I agree with the decision also, and think it should apply to Occupy Wall Street protestors JDPriestly Jun 2014 #44

Yes. Exactly. n/t Psephos Jun 2014 #47

Yes, this is a reasonable decision to protect free speech Distant Quasar Jun 2014 #55