Latest Breaking News

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)

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

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:45 PM

Jun 2014

The conservatives like to think that they have the right to confront, touch, force their speech and literature upon a specific person. I believe they have no right to target an individual, therefore a buffer zone is no imposition on their First Amendment rights.

The distance of the buffer does become an issue. Personally, I think enough to prevent physical interaction is probably appropriate. Maybe double or half again the distance that prevents the casual spitter from hitting a target...

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