Judge overturns West Palm's clinic buffer law (abortion protestors)

[The Straight Story]

Judge overturns West Palm's clinic buffer law

By Thomas Collins

WEST PALM BEACH — A federal judge has ruled that a city law imposing a buffer zone on abortion protesters violates free-speech rights and has ordered the city not to enforce it.

The law — enacted in October after someone set fire to the Presidential Women's Center, the last clinic in Palm Beach County where abortions are done — created a 20-foot buffer around entrances and other public areas outside health-care facilities.

U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled that the city didn't prove the existence of problems that it said the law addressed: restricted patient access and a threat to public safety. Even if it had, the law is too strict, he ruled.

"Freedom of speech is rarely an issue when everyone agrees," Middlebrooks wrote. "Perhaps more than at any other place and any other time, in cases such as this, speech guaranteed by the First Amendment must be protected."

Middlebrooks ruled that the city probably would lose its case at trial, so the law cannot remain in effect until a trial takes place.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2006/04/18/s1a_buffer_0418.html

[endarkenment]

1. I'll take the unpopular position and agree with the judge.

Freedom of speech is a double edged sword that I can live with. It includes supporting the rights of those you disagree with.

[hippiechick]

So give 'em a 'free speech zone' ...

....

[endarkenment]

7. Free speech zones are newspeak idiocy.

They are an unconstitutional abomination. I assume you were being satirical.

[HereSince1628]

18. But they are also enforced wherever the chimperor goes.

I suspect its an administrative attaction to that "unconstitutional" thang.

[NashVegas]

64. And This is How Presidential Free Speech Zones Happened in the First Place

The allowance started with blocking abortion protesters into zones.

For this same reason, I'm against ordinances that are being passed to keep the Fred Phelps gang away from funerals. It makes martyrs.

[hippiechick]

104. No, I was not being satirical.

If the fundies are forced to operate out of the same 'free speech zones' that the anti-war and anti-Bush supporters are forced to operate out of, you can bet your next paycheck that there will be a Supreme Court challenge to the constitutionality of said 'free speech zones' in a matter of months, if not weeks. At which time, it will (hopefully) be determined that the things are ludicrous from the outset, and the whole 'free speech zone' concept will be tossed out the window.

Let the other side do our work for us, for once, eh ?

[rkc3]

25. With you 100% - place them around the block outside the view

of the patient.

The same protection our fearless leader needs from unruly grandmothers.

[endarkenment]

27. Wrong for us and wrong for them. nt.

[rkc3]

32. You're right - but it would be interesting to hear the nutters react to

that suggestion.

[endarkenment]

37. Conversely these decisions

make it increasingly difficult for the chimperator to keep his no speech zones.

[rkc3]

66. That would require a group to make the connection between the two

and challenge the Constitutionality of the "free" speech zones.

Doing that would really give these asshats a black mark.

[saigon68]

11. This ruling is MUSIC TO THE EARS OF FRED PHELPS

He's coming to town near yours,--- soon.

And the Cops will protect him and his caravan of Half-Wits, Half-Breeds and Half-Baked idiots.

[endarkenment]

13. So do you think the right of the people to peacefully assemble

and express their opinions, good bad or downright disgusting, should be abolished or protected?

[saigon68]

33. abolished or protected?

WTF Where the @#$# do you get that from my post.

In another thread the DU community wanted Phelps Hung, Drawn and Quartered

http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/hdq.html


Now you are questioning my post

Get a grip I'm not going to debate the merits or lack of merits on this topic

[endarkenment]

38. Ok so I have no clue what your position is here or why you

are even posting in this thread, which is about the merits of protecting free speech at health clinics. Sorry for jumping to any conclusions, my mistake.

[saigon68]

67. My apology after arguing with the "Let's Fry Phelps in the

Electric Chair" crowd here at DU, in another thread, I jumped to a conclusion I should not have.

Please accept my apology

And I can tell you I am not in favor of prior restraint Vis a Vis the 1st amendment et al

[endarkenment]

68. That would appear to make two of us.

--- sigh ---

[saigon68]

70. Thanks

This is my 13,000th post

[Ian David]

79. Whoever you're replying to is on my ignore list

Judging from what you're saying to him or her, it looks like I made the right call.

[CornField]

91. Peacefully seems to be the apt phrase here

From my personal experience with women's clinic protestors, I can attest that their presence is not peaceful. Nothing like having a bunch of people who have no clue about your personal situation grabbing your arms, swinging signs in front of you and yelling in your ears.

[endarkenment]

93. Grabbing an arm is assault.

The laws already exist to deal with that.

[lastliberalintexas]

97. Actually, that's battery

An assault does not even involve touching, and once there is physical contact the charge is coverted to a battery.

But yes, there are already laws on the books to deal with the specific people and/or groups of people who actually assault, batter, harass, etc. the women and men trying to enter the clinic. We need to be better about enforcing thos laws against the specific people who violate them, rather than any kind of prior restraint enacted.


It does suck that these kinds of people are allowed to protest at the clinics, that women have to deal with these zealots in simply trying to seek medical care. But the answer to that is not an infringement of sppech, even the most offensive speech.

[Zenlitened]

110. What's wrong with a prior restraint on assault and battery?

That's what a modest buffer zone restrains -- not speech.

In fact, speech is thus protected, because if things descended into a squirming mass of people assaulting and being assaulted, battering and being battered, then police would have no choice but to shut the whole thing down.

Then everyone's rights have gone down the toilet. No speech, no medical care, nothing.

Of course, that would suit the fundies just fine. Their type have always wielded chaos and upheaval as a means of crushing their opponents. They'd happily shut up and take their poison elsewhere if their aggressive and at times violent behavior succeeded in driving patients away for good.

[loudsue]

112. Yep, and in Florida, you can SHOOT someone if they are guilty

of "battering" you. Looks like civil war is right around the corner in some spots.

:kick::kick::kick:

[BR_Parkway]

21. I want him to - and get good coverage - and be called "pro-family

Christian activist" so that more and more people can see he's not any different than Falwell, Dobson, AFA, CWA - they just hide their hate behind a little more respectable image.

[endarkenment]

26. Exactly.

I am not scared by freedom of expression. I relish it. Let all ideas compete freely. I am scared by state repression of free expression, very scared.

[Richard Steele]

76. He's already been to my town, actually.

Personally, I consider the PhelpsBots to be
a great recruiting tool for Liberalism.
Their insane antics certainly don't help their "cause",
whatever the hell it might be.

Now, the clinic protesters are a different story.
I disagree with the judge here:
I think the 'problems' that these people cause
have been well-documented and widely known for years.
And they make little pretense that their INTENT
goes well beyond free speech.

[saigon68]

111. The so called freedom of their speech, is intended to PROVOKE violence

This argument for example, was used against the Nazis in Skokie a number of years ago. To keep the Nazis from marching.

For example, the Nazis, by showing up shouting in a city made up of Holocaust survivors, wearing Black SS uniforms is like looking for a gas leak with a lit kitchen match, as a source of illumination.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

61. That's my take on it,

but, THIS IS IMPORTANT - we have no way of knowing (yet) what issues were raised here.

Don't forget - the judge can only rule on what is placed before the court. So, if one side didn't put up a very good case, the ruling might sound strange.

There are no such things as 'free speech zones.' Either speech is free for everyone, or it's not free at all.

This is where I really love the Constitution. Makes you swallow hard and hold tight to what's right and wrong. It's all good.

[NashVegas]

63. I'll Agree With You, BUT

It's time for local police and court officers to do their jobs and make arrests and prosecutions for harrassment when and where it's warranted.

When abortion protesters are blocking entrances, photographing personel and otherwise interfering with the process, they are in violation of clinics' users civil rights.

[endarkenment]

69. I agree and have been trying to make that distinction.

I seem to have failed, as usual, and have been relegated to some left over male chauvinist pig hell instead. Oh well.

[KoKo]

2. What the heck is going on in West Palm Beach....t hat's liberal

country... :crazy:

[The Straight Story]

5. well, it was a federal judge

which might shed some light on it.

[lastliberalintexas]

62. A federal judge appointed by Clinton

who also ruled against the republicans in the recount issue.

I'll go on record and take the unpopular position along with endarkment- which just so happens to also be the liberal position in favor of individual liberty.

[endarkenment]

72. at least I ain't alone

sometimes the endarkenment reaches right into DU.

[endarkenment]

10. Protecting freedom of speech is important, right? nt.

[depakid]

3. Guess that doesn't bode too well for military funerals

I guess Florida should be expecting a visit from Fred Phelps & Co. soon....

[endarkenment]

9. Peaceful public protest is protected speech.

Even if you can't stand it.

[depakid]

24. Somehow I suspect

that had the facts been different (as in- this was one of Phelp's militart funeral protests) the judge would have "applied" the principle differently.

Pure speculation, of course.

[endarkenment]

28. Then the judge would have been wrong. nt.

[depakid]

34. That was the implication....

My hunch is that he's anti-choice, not pro-1st Amendment.

And there are some extenuating facts in this case regarding access to clinics that have already been ruled on to the contrary in federal courts.

[endarkenment]

71. I see no evidence that he is anti choice.

"U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled that the city didn't prove the existence of problems that it said the law addressed: restricted patient access and a threat to public safety. Even if it had, the law is too strict, he ruled.

"Freedom of speech is rarely an issue when everyone agrees," Middlebrooks wrote. "Perhaps more than at any other place and any other time, in cases such as this, speech guaranteed by the First Amendment must be protected."

Middlebrooks ruled that the city probably would lose its case at trial, so the law cannot remain in effect until a trial takes place.

A related law prohibiting "unnecessary noise" and "amplified sound" within 100 feet of such facilities can be enforced, although Middlebrooks wrote that he found that ordinance flawed.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2006/04/18/s1a_buffer_0418.html

If he was just some fundaloon with an axe to grind why didn't he strike down enforcement of the noise law too?

By the way the same article goes on to point out that these massive harrassing disruptive verbal violence inflicting protests that should not be considered speech generally consisted of a grand total of three women.

[William769]

4. I wonder how this Judge feels about Bush's free speech zones?

[bunkerbuster1]

6. Only the little people have to obey laws.

Preznits just make 'em up as they go along.

(and Congress is apparently OK with that.)

[endarkenment]

8. Don't know about this particular judge but...

"Following is just a partial list of incidents from around the nation. In some cases, the ACLU is representing the individuals or groups involved. But because these cases are too numerous to litigate individually, the ACLU has asked a federal court for a nationwide injunction barring the Secret Service from directing local police to restrict protesters' access to appearances by President Bush and other senior Administration officials.

The ACLU has also documented incidents of government crackdowns on dissent in many forms in a report, Freedom Under Fire: Dissent in Post-9/11 America, available online at /safefree/resources/17281pub20031208.html"

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11419res20030923.html

Free speech zones are newspeak for banning freedom of speech.

[William769]

19. Thanks for the link.

[VegasWolf]

12. People who have abortions are the new witches for the religionists

to burn.

[endarkenment]

16. Does the first amendment have no meaning to you?

[VegasWolf]

30. My feelings regarding organized religion have taken a nose dive these

past 8 years. I can barely stomach listening to religious people anymore. Regardless, nothing I said had anything to do with free speech. I simply exercised my own free speech by saying what I think of religionists blocking access to abortion facilities. That make you happy?

[endarkenment]

35. I'm fine with that. I hate them too. eom.

[Megahurtz]

100. I Can't Stand Them Either.

Repeatedly shoving their Religion in your face when a person is minding they're own business.
That's the only reason they're harassing people over abortion in the first place,
over their bogus Religion.:grr:

[Lindacooks]

14. These protestors were kept away because THEY were

violating the patient's RIGHT TO PRIVACY. The freedom of speech argument is ridiculous. Nobody is saying the protestors can't voice their opinions. They just can't harass women, some of whom are very sick, who are trying to obtain medical care.

Sheesh.

[endarkenment]

20. They have a right to protest peacefully on public property.

You have no privacy in a public space. Your argument is absurd. If the protestors block the entrance, they are breaking the law. If they assault anybody they are breaking the law. If they peacefully express their opinions on public property, that is protected political speech. If you allow this right to be taken away from hideous religious bigots it will also be taken away from you. How difficult a concept is this?

[Zenlitened]

86. I think the key word in your statement is "peacefully."

Forming a mob around someone trying to enter a building, to the point where it becomes impossible to enter without coming into physical contact with people who are visibly hostile toward you, fails to meet that standard, in my view.

If these protesters would indeed <i>peacefully</i> demonstrate, if they would let people use the sidewalk unhindered, then no buffer zone would be necessary.

But they don't. So your argument is... absurd. They break the law in just the manner you describe, and so the buffer zone is imposed to prevent their lawlessness from harming others. Not to arrest them after they've caused harm. But to prevent a crime for occurring.

It's that simple. Their right to speak is preserved, as is the right of others to walk unmolested. A nice balancing of constitutional rights.

[endarkenment]

92. Uh, quite frankly that is nonsense.

Read the article. The protestors at this clinic consisted generally of three women. However prior restraint of all protests on the basis that some protests in the past resulted in illegal behavior is an unconstitutional violation of the 1st amendment.

If there are protestors violating laws, by all means arrest those protestors. If specific individuals or groups do this repeatedly, get a restraining order against them. But passing a law banning all exercising of free speech to prevent some people from committing a crime in the future is nonsense.

[Zenlitened]

99. Well, you use the word "nonsense" rather freely...

... considering the faults in your own arguments.

Someone tried to burn the clinic down. Across the country, we have seen scenes resembling battles at clinic entrances. And so a reasonable person concludes that criminal behavior in front of a clinic might be expected. And so it should be prevented. Whether there are three protesters today is less relevant,a s there may be 300 tomorrow.

So the buffer zone is created to prevent all-too-likely crimes.

And free speech is PRESERVED. That's where your whole argument breaks down: You claim that creating a modest buffer zone amounts to a "law banning all exercising of free speech," but that's not the case at all. Quite the opposite.

Your argument is flawed from the start. Buffer zones of a reasonable distance do not erode free speech. They preserve it. And they do so while preserving the equally valid rights of others, by ensuring that public safety is preserved BEFORE someone gets hurt.

[Lindacooks]

106. The protests are NOT peaceful. Have you ever been around one?

They yell 'murderer' at the women. They hold graphic signs up of dead babies. And yes, some of them have shot and killed women trying to get medical care and doctors providing it.

And they have blocked the entrance, creating a horrible confrontational environment.

BTW, clinics are NOT 'public property'.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Free speech versus practical, common sense

Removing a buffer zone will have an impact on those who want access to the clinic and the clinic's personnel.

The humiliation of walking to the entrance of an abortion clinic with people yelling "Baby Killer!" is profound. Even those patients seeking nothing more than a Pap Test get the condemnation of being baby killers. And some jostle and touch the clientele en route to the door.

And how about you are a physician performing a D&C. You need calm, steady hands with an atmosphere of relative quiet. The thickness of an average uterus is less than 1/16 of an inch. It would not take much of a sudden movement after hearing an unexpected scream outside the window to perforate a uterus during an otherwise routine D&C.

Yeah, removing the buffer zone protects a whole buncha Americans versus one or two citizens. That's what makes something constitutional these days I guess.

[endarkenment]

22. Sorry but free speech wins.

Your argument about protests causing surgical mishaps is specious. You of course can back that up with actual occurences, right? Somehow I don't think that actual argument was made in court in this matter, but I could be wrong.

[no_hypocrisy]

36. Let me put it another way: The Supreme Court has held restrictions of

free speech in certain circumstances to be constitutional. The health, safety, and wellbeing of women going to exercise another constutitionally protected activity is an allowable restriction of free speech.

[endarkenment]

39. Very narrow restrictions where there is an established danger.

Being subjected to a protest when entering a clinic does not cause any immediate harm. It is not a 'fire in the theater' issue.

[CTyankee]

75. There are also "time, place and manner" restrictions

e.g. sound truck in a hospital zone.

This is what happened at the Planned Parenthood health center, where I worked. One protestor harassed and threatened both patients and their escorts. He would sometimes jump in the path of a car that had slowed to enter the driveway (he was on the sidewalk). The other protestors held signs and tried to give out literature. No problem. But Stanley was a real bugger. WE got a restraining order on his butt. Now he has his sign a couple of blocks away on a busy thoroughfare. When you stop for a light, he's yelling something.

I once went out with a camera and yelled to him "Stanley, I'm gonna take a picture of your ugly face and put it all over my direct mail appeals. I'll make a ton of money." He laughed and said "Aren't you afraid I'll break your camera?" I told him I'd take that chance. Later, when the checks came in I took a handful out and held them up and thanked him. He wasn't too happy about that.

He once darkly threatened an escort that maybe a bullet would find him. The escort said "Are you threatening me?" and Stanley just mumbled. The escort had a chat with our local cop.

Stanley also made the mistake of harassing a Yale student. She lodged a complaint, had the police in and really stood up to the guy. Man, she had moxie. Stanley was miserable that she didn't collapse in tears or cower in fear.

[Rose Siding]

17. Weren't these the protesters who were accosting patients entering clinics?

That's not speech.

[endarkenment]

23. Right - that's assault.

Assault was and is a criminal offense. Nobody is being permitted to assault. There is no freedom of assault.

[MountainLaurel]

29. Wonder how this'll mesh with FL's self-defense law?

Can't wait for a firearm-carrying woman trying to get a pap smear shoots one of these good KKKristians because they were assaulting her as she tried to get to the clinic.

[endarkenment]

43. Fine with me.

I'd rather that didn't happen, but if somebody assaults somebody and the assaulter gets shot for their efforts, oh well.

[lastliberalintexas]

65. That would almost be funny!

I say almost because, even against these thugs, I am opposed to vigilante justice. Now, if it's *truly* in self-defense, then that's a completely different matter.

[Samurai_Writer]

31. These laws were put in for a reason

In 1992, I lived in Houston, and that summer we hosted the Republican National Convention. The anti-choice groups thought it would be a great time to 'make a statement' by shutting down ALL the clinics in Houston that week. They were bussed and flown in from all over the country. JUST before this, the buffer zone rules (Clinic Free Access law) went into affect. If it had not been for that law, Houston would have had literally THOUSANDS of anti-choice protestors blocking entrances to Houston's women's clinics. They still tried, and many were arrested. I was a clinic defense worker and escorted patients into clinics, through these unruly, hateful mobs. It was upsetting to ME, and I wasn't even the patient!

This has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with keeping entrances clear and safe so women can go into the clinics for health care. These clinics provide a variety of services, and not only abortion. The anti-choice fanatics seem to forget that when they try to shut these clinics down.

[endarkenment]

41. "It has to do with keeping entrances clear and safe "

Uh no it actually has to do with free speech. Blocking the entrance is not legal and will result in arrest, as it should.

They can protest outside the clinics. When they physically block the entrance or assault people attempting to enter they break the law.

Do you think we ought to be allowed to protest outside military recruitment offices?

[Samurai_Writer]

44. Have you ever been to a women's clinic?

Have you ever had to have an abortion? Have you ever had to wade through people spewing the most vile, evil words at you when you are going into a clinic to have a medical procedure done? Have you ever had to depend on a clinic defense worker to see you safely through a crowd of people who are ready and willing to make you as emotionally upset as possible before undergoing a surgical procedure?

Seeing that you're male, I would guess your answer would be no to all of the above. Consider yourself ignored.

[endarkenment]

50. When in doubt play the sexism card.

Ok fine I'm a male chauvinist pig because I think freedom of speech is a basic human right that should not be abolished on a case by case basis whenever it serves some political interest to do so.

And despite being ignored I will once again distinguish between protected speech and assault. Assault is quite simply not protected speech. Arrest those who commit assault or who block entrances. I'll continue to support the right of idiots and vile asshats to spew their protected hate speech, even your vile hate speech. And you may continue to ignore me and put me in your little 'he's a pig box' so that you don't have to think about the actual issue here.

[CTyankee]

78. Well, what about the right of white racists in the south

showing up at polling places with shotguns and taking note of every black person who attempts to vote? These white men said nothing more than to greet the blacks that they knew (NOT in a kindly way, more like a "I see your comin' here to vote today.").

Is that free speech?

[Megahurtz]

83. Sorry Dude.

:patriot:My Right to Privacy might just trample your Free Speech.

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

122. uh, RadFemFL, I'm male and I HAVE been such an escort...

__... as well as a few other "non-trad" things you might find hard to believe...

__I understand (yes! "Understand") the frustration and the rage, but let's try to give each other the honor of believeing in each other''s essential humanity and compassion...

[Megahurtz]

82. Agreed RadFemFL!!! n/t

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

121. a little late addendum...

"Speech" does not include physical actions designed to harrass or otherwise intimidate... violent acts hiding behind the 1st Amendment make a mockery of the Constitution!

Keep on keepin' on, RadFem... I got your back, sister!

[Beaverhausen]

40. Women going to a clinic to receive medical care should not have to deal...

...with protestors...or anyone getting in their way. This is fucked up. Not everyone who uses clinics is having an abortion. Maybe they are just getting an annual exam. Why should anyone be able to get in their way? I would think that somehow the HIPPA laws could be applied here. It is no ones business when other people receive medical care.

[endarkenment]

42. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right.

It trumps any HIPPA law. There is no constitutional right that somehow elevates the sidewalk outside a health clinic to be not a 'public space'. If the patient has the right to be on that sidewalk, so does the person carrying a hateful abusive anti-abortion sign.

[Dhalgren]

45. The purpose of the anti-women protesters is not to express their

opinions about health care policies, it is to harass and intimidate women who are going about their own business. It is personal intimidation of women by anti-women activists - it's speech as a personal weapon...

[Mad_Dem_X]

47. EXACTLY - it's harrassment

and intimidation, and blocking someone's access to a building when they are trying to get medical attention! It is not always "peaceful protest"! Some of those so-called "pro-lifers" get nasty and abusive.

[arikara]

54. It could even be argued that the way they act

is assault. This is not a freedom of speech issue. They have the right to say what they want but they should be allowed to mentally, emotionally or physically assault someone who is going in for a medical procedure.

They are nothing more than thugs.

[endarkenment]

58. Speech you do not approve of does not become not speech

by your disapproval.

[endarkenment]

51. So would you support similar restrictions on military recruitment

offices?

[Beaverhausen]

53. Medical offices aren't the same as military recruitment offices

Personal medical care is no one's business but the person receiving the care.

[endarkenment]

56. Nobody's personal business is anybody else's.

You have drawn a distinction without a difference. Prohibiting protest at your special public spaces allows the state to prohibit protest at any other public space.

Arrest the protestors who assault people or block entrances. Defend free speech. Why this is even debatable is escaping me, as it is bloody obvious.

[Dhalgren]

55. If protesters at a recruiting office were as verbally violent to the

young people going into the recruiter's office as these anti-women protesters are, yes. It is one thing to walk to and fro protesting a function, or an office or an organization, but to become abusive, intimidating, and threatening to someone who is trying to exercise their own, equally valid, rights for any reason is unacceptable. The right to free speech is no greater a right than these women's rights to seek medical attention of their own choosing. It is wrong to actively intimidate someone trying to exercise their rights.

[endarkenment]

57. Ah so now the argument is verbal violence.

OK, you might have a case there. If one can establish in a constitutional fashion what exactly 'verbal violence' is, then perhaps all verbal violence can be banned. Of course I really don't think that carrying that out to its logical conclusions and applying such a free speech restriction to all protests is exactly what you had in mind, but I could be wrong.

I am of course dead set against a prohibition on something as ambiguous as 'verbal violence'. Some folks would probably consider 'Out of Iraq Now' verbal violence.

[shochet]

46. Why doesn't anyone talk about privacy here?

Confidentiality, HIPPA, all these laws are designed to protect people's privacy. In fact, aren't abortion rights in general a woman's private issue? But as usual, this administration is wearing down all our rights.

[Mad_Dem_X]

48. Good point! n/t

[Beaverhausen]

49. I agree. see my Post #40

:hi:

[endarkenment]

52. You have no privacy on a public sidewalk. nt.

[Megahurtz]

85. This is Bullshit, Dude!

So you think they're giving the same Free Speech rights to War Protesters???
Wake up!!!:argh:

[Lindacooks]

107. Yep. And these 'protestors' have taken pictures of the women

and staff and made them public. That is an absolute violation of privacy.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

[ToeBot]

59. I find it astounding that someone would argue that is is ok to harass

someone under the guise of free speech. It's should be ok to interfere with someone's life? Should we now rescind all those restraining orders? Wouldn't they too, be a violation of someones right to free speech? This is nonsense.

[endarkenment]

60. Restraining orders?

Which part of the 1st amendment are you proposing we abolish, or just the whole damn thing?

A restraining order is granted in a court procedure after evidence is presented justifying the order. That is a whole different thing from a general prohibition on peaceful protests at certain public locations.

Trying to redefine peaceful protest as not peaceful protest is sophistry. If there is law breaking going on, if for example there is actual criminal harassment or assault, then existing laws apply and should be applied. Individuals or groups who repeatedly break laws could and should be subject to restraining orders prohibiting them from such activities.

The judge ruled on the right of the people to peacefully protest, nothing more and nothing less. He reached the obvious conclusion that, for now, we continue to have that right.

[Megahurtz]

88. Abortion Protests are NOT Peaceful Protests. n/t

[endarkenment]

90. Really?

Just that simple huh? Any abortion protest? All abortion protests? Exactly which words and phrases qualify a protest as an abortion protest?

[Megahurtz]

102. Yup. That Simple. n/t

[CTyankee]

117. Hey buddy, go to one and find out for yourself!

You don't seem to have much "real life" experience with what you are talking about. Try for a little authenticity before writing your polemics. It helps.

[warrens]

73. Solution: MORE FREE SPEECH

Get gangs together, shout them down, drown out their church services, picket their businesses, hang out in front of their houses blasting airhorns right up to 11 p.m.

[endarkenment]

74. Works for me.

Blasting airhorns most likely violates noise ordinances.

[CTyankee]

80. There you go, a restriction on "free speech" is it not?

After all, one person's speech could be another person's "noise."
See what I mean?

[endarkenment]

87. You can measure noise and have a content free standard.

Consequently it is not an issue and there are numerous court tested noise ordinances on the books all across the land.

[CTyankee]

105. What is "content free"? Also,you didn't respond to my post about

Southern racists who sat outside the polling place door with shotguns in their laps, greeting black voters as they entered the polling place.

The point here is that these Southern racists denied blacks the constitutional right to vote by their speech. They didn't threaten with their speech, they didn't point their guns (actually, they didn't even have to have their guns there to make their point). Just their presence and the tone of their remarks was enough.

Intimidation of women at clinics where they exercise their constitutional right to choose happens every day in the United States. If you were outraged about what happened to blacks in the Civil Rights movement, you should be outraged about what is happening to women in the Reproductive rights movement today. Same deal. Somehow this doesn't merit your attention, much less your outrage? Well, well. How interesting.

[endarkenment]

113. Content free means

That the courts look at restrictions that are neutral with respect to the content of speech much differently than restrictions that differentiate based on content. Prohibiting political speech at a specific public location is a clear violation of the 1st, while a noise ordinance that applies to all speech is most likely not.

"Southern racists" primarily denied black people the right to vote by a legal system (poll taxes and literacy tests) that denied black people the right to vote. The voting rights act of 65 eliminated all such legislation. The intimidation factor is indeed a problem. However that problem should be dealt with not by violating the constitution and weakening the 1st amendment in ways that would enable the state to eliminate all public protests it finds inconvenient, but through other means.

As I have said ad nauseum, where laws are being broken, laws should be enforced. Intimidation should be dealt with through a network of committed activists providing support to people needing access to reproductive health care clinics, in direct opposition to the rightwing frootloops, not by scrapping even more of the bill of rights.

I am astounded that posters here feel obliged to paint any disagreement with their views as automatically sexist. Is there no room for disagreement in your narrow ideological framework? Do you think that the conflict between privacy rights and free speech rights is crystal clear, beyond debate? That anyone who thinks that scrapping the right of the people to peacefully assemble is a dubious proposition is automatically a sexist pig? What on earth is up with that?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Which part of that sentence do you not understand?

[CTyankee]

116. Well, my analogy holds

since many protestors, not all, are attempting to intimidate women and health providers from exercising a constitutional right. That, my friend, is going on TODAY in every place in this country that has reproductive health clinics. AND the intimidation has caused many providers to close their facilities, making abortion rights harder and harder to access. So no access, no constitutional right. Are you with me so far?

I know my First Amendment. I worked for the Exec. of the national ACLU, Aryeh Neier, for 3 years and for John Shattuck, former ACLU Legis. Director in Washington for 3 years. So, please, no lectures, no "what part of this" stuff.

That being said, we have a problem. If people cannot exercise a constitutional right then it is a right without agency, i.e. no right at all.

What annoys me is that I hear posters like you start this kind of thread and I think you know you are starting a fight with feminists. That's OK but I've seen this often (you ain't the first to come up with this)that I wonder "Is this guy trying to solve a problem or just argue a point?"

How about this? We settle down and think about what's important. Frankly, peaceful demonstrations would be a relief from what we REALLY see, which you, in your ignorance about the reality of the situation, fail to see. I'm not accusing you of bad faith, just a lack of information about the real story here.

Just some preliminary thoughts...

[CTyankee]

81. Generally, I would agree with you but

as a practical matter you can't do that. The protestors are dispersed in varying parts of the city or area. The clinics, however, are sitting ducks and easy to target for their, ahem, free speech.

I did have one innovative vendor who came to the clinic one day when our abusive Stanley was parading around and insulting women. He yelled at him across the parking lot "Hey, Stanley, how do you get a nun pregnant? Dress her like an altar boy!" Boy, was Stanley mad! He got into his van (plastered with pictures of "aborted fetuses") and emerged with a crucifix on a long pole and ran along the sidewalk while the vendor sauntered to his car.

Clinic personnel were trained NOT to speak to protestors. I did violate that rule on occasion because I was mad and because my office window was right above where they stationed themselves on the sidewalk and they pissed me off. Generally, tho, we were cautioned to ignore the protestors and help the patient feel as comfortable as possible. Once inside the clinic, they were usually fine. The escorts helped also. They were great.

[Ian David]

77. Well, then I guess that dooms the law against protesting at funerals? n/t

[Zenlitened]

84. I think the "free speech" argument collapses when burly escorts are needed

... just to get in the clinic door.

When the sidewalk is mobbed to the point where you can't walk in without coming into physical contact with a mob of protestors... well, their rights have just landed on the tip of your nose, so to speak.

They've formed a blockade, which many here agree is not legal, not a form of protected speech.

The protesters cannot be trusted to allow passage into the clinic. So, do we round them up and forbid them from protesting at all?

No... we try to find a balance, ensuring their rights as well as the right of patients to enter the clinic unmolested.

The solution is called a buffer zone. It's a good compromise. It honors the Constitution, and the many rights defined within the document, rather than diminishing it as some have argued here.

[endarkenment]

89. And once again

if the protestors block access that is criminal behavior and they can be and should be arrested and there is no need for new laws to do so. if the protestors assault people trying to enter the building, that is assault, it is already a crime, and the laws should be enforced. If groups or individuals are chronically breaking the law then the specific groups and individuals can have restraining orders issued barring them from going near specific locations.

What you should agree with me on is that protecting free speech is a good thing.

[Megahurtz]

94. Sorry, Woman's Right to Privacy Rules.

And I don't agree with you.
The Right to Privacy when some Doctor is about to look up my @$$
is more important than your Free Speech!

And it's the Wing-Nut Fundies and their agenda which changed the law.
They could give a rat's ass about Free Speech. Don't fool yourself.
At the next genuinely peaceful War Protest they'll be arresting people.

[Zenlitened]

95. Here's the thing: I'd rather not become the victim of a crime.

I'd prefer that the crime be prevented in the first place.

If groups or individuals are chronically breaking the law... I'd rather not have to get beaten up before someone puts a stop to their behavior.

Seeking restraining orders, based on crimes that have been committed, seems to me unreasonable. When a group has shown that it chronically breaks the law and interferes with the rights of others, then a better solution is needed.

The buffer zone -- of a reasonable distance -- is one such solution. It enshrines the right to free speech -- rather than restricting it, as you argue -- while preserving another right, the right to walk down the street unmolested.

I see from your posts that you wish to view free speech as an inviolable ideal, and I think that's admirable. But ideals tend to get a bit mussed when applied in the real world. Competing ideals require compromise, something that I think our Constitution both acknowledges and provides guidance on. This is a compromise that succeeds quite well, in my view.

[CTyankee]

108. Dear heart, please visit now and again, one of those

clinics under siege wherever you live. Consider it a "site visit" for research on your First Amendment education. No big deal, just find out why all these wimmin on DU are playing the "sexist card" and not paying attention to your holy First Amendment prayer service here. Love to know!

Look, I treasure the First Amendment as much as you do. It's just that I have a little different perspective. You tell me how much experience you have with these protests and I'll tell you mine. How about that? Then we'll talk, OK?

[Justitia]

96. So...we can picket their churches, burn bibles (or piss on them) on the

sidewalks, make signs reading "Supersitious Snake Handling Bigots", blow up big pics of historical lynching parties and affix them to posters, etc - all during their church services on Sunday???

Cool!

[lastliberalintexas]

98. Actually, you can

You might not be able to urinate on a poster/sign in public, but that is because of the indecent exposure laws on the books and the fact that such a restraint is content neutral and applies to all. Just as anti-war protesters are allowed to burn the flag and hold peace vigils in the parks.

Just stay off private property. :)

[Justitia]

101. Great news, I have all kinds of ideas for nice big posters outside church

lynchings, Nazis, Abu Gharib photos, dead Iraqi children, etc.

I'm thinking we could stage all manner of plays...a la Last Temptation of Christ, preacher-actors involved in all manner of debasement (within public lewdness laws, of course), mock witch burning, etc.

We could read the Satanic bible (there is one of those, right?) out loud (within noise control laws, of course), with some dude dressed as the Evil One himself.

I could get really creative and turn Sunday at church into an experience ALMOST AS FUN as visiting a women's clinic being surrounded by nutjobs!

[Megahurtz]

103. Hahahaha!!!

:rofl:

[anotherdrew]

120. yep, let's give them the same damn treatment n/t

[brentspeak]

109. The judge's rationale makes no sense at all

"U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled that the city didn't prove the existence of problems that it said the law addressed: restricted patient access and a threat to public safety. Even if it had, the law is too strict, he ruled."

If the city proved that the abortion protesters really were a threat to public safety and that the law was therefore useful -- or even necessary -- in maintaining the public safety, how could the law be "too strict"?

[noonwitch]

114. It's still a crime for them to block access, right?

That's my concern-the more lunatic protestors won't stick to free speech, they get their children to lay down in front of cars and they will gang together and block access to the clinic. That should still be considered criminal-the first should result in CPS intervention.

I don't care if they stand nearby holding signs and chanting. That's their right.

[The Straight Story]

115. I would think there is a general law on blocking access to any building

If not, there should be :)

[Hekate]

118. So jostling, shoving things in your face, yelling prayers & obscenities...

...threatening bodily harm, spewing hellfire and damnation ... So all these are "protected free speech" activities WHEN DONE BY ANTI-ABORTION ACTIVISTS?

But NOT WHEN DONE BY ANYONE ELSE? Any other group that did all this would be charged with incitement to riot.

Some of my fellow DUers seem to be blissfully ignorant of what goes on in front of women's clinics. The buffer zones were not established to prevent people from peacefully praying and quietly weeping into their hankies over the sins of the world.

Santa Barbara, CA pioneered the buffer zone idea because of the awful behavior of the people opposed to abortion -- as in: jostling, shoving, pushing pamphlets right into faces, yelling, threatening bodily harm, and spewing hellfire & damnation.

DUers, look out for your First Amendment rights elsewhere. The Bush regime has made a mockery of the very notion of public democracy -- but as with the Terri Schiavo case, they are only too happy to support certain "rights" when they can be exploited to the hilt.

Hekate

[anotherdrew]

119. so I can setup protests outside their church and hassle them on sunday?

sounds good, we need money money money and we'll pay people good money to make these protesters lives miserable. We can protest outside their houses even.

[CTyankee]

123. Another analogy

I thought of this when I saw my neighbors who are Orthodox walking to shull for Passover services, exercising their constitutional right to practice their religion. What if rabid anti-semites decided to exercise their free speech, hounding devout Jews who are not allowed to ride to services all the way to and from the temple? The Jews would thus be slowly moving targets while the bigots would get to spew their vile "free" speech at them. Not block their entrance or exit, just following them down the street to their houses and trying to humiliate and insult them with taunts.

Mercifully, that does not happen in my neighborhood, because I live in a liberal, tolerant city. I never think of New Haven as a place where free speech is not revered, so I wonder what would happen if my scenario were to materialize. How would you honor the First Amendment free speech clause, and also honor the free exercise of religion clause? I'll bet the answer would be some sort of buffer zone arrangement!

This is what is happening to women who are exercising their constiutional right to an abortion. I have seen women exiting the clinic and being taunted all the way down the street to the bus stop, where they had to endure it until the bus came.