• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones

Cardinal said:
Harassment is not freedom of speech. If it is, then harassment is moot.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes it is.

If I stand outside a health club and call every over-weight person who walks in a fatso, that's harassment. If they're on public property? Perhaps they could be arrested for being a public nuisance. I don't know the nuances of the law, but I do know that the fact we HAVE freedom of speech, the spoken word is responsible for an awful lot of harassment -- and most of it isn't illegal.
 
MaggieD said:
Abortion clinics deserve no more protection than we give our war dead . . . a/k/a SCOTUS ruling of 2011 re Westboro Baptist Church.
Click to expand...

That case was a bit different. as it involved a public sidewalk. cematary plots are private plots owned by the family or person that bought them.

westboror still doesn't have the right to harass people at a funeral in a private ceramony. their right to free speech does not trump someone elses right to privacy and to not be harassed.

however i haven't heard much from them lately i think they have gone underground.
 
Cardinal said:
I think citizens deserve better privacy protections.
Click to expand...

Good. You tell that to all the places such as Walmart that allow folks to sit outside and sell flag pins and Girl Scout cookies and whatever. Seeing them annoys me and forces me face being engaged and having to ignore them or say no thanks.

More seriously, I participated for 15 years--until the closing of this PP clinic, in fact--in silent protest against the abortions being performed there. In all those years, I never said one word, just stood on the sidewalk and prayed. Except for the occasional "sidewalk counselor," I never heard anybody say anything. People would pull into the parking lot, a waiting escort would walk to the car and escort the lady into the building, and that was that.

No abuse, no rancor, just people standing and praying...and exercising their rights of freedom of assembly and speech.
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, yes it is.

If I stand outside a health club and call every over-weight person who walks in a fatso, that's harassment. If they're on public property? Perhaps they could be arrested for being a public nuisance. I don't know the nuances of the law, but I do know that the fact we HAVE freedom of speech, the spoken word is responsible for an awful lot of harassment -- and most of it isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

you can also be asked to leave for causing a public disturbance. if you don't then you can be arrested.

you have freedom of speech but it is not unlimited.
 
Cardinal said:
An amusing action, if pointless if intended to be a protest to the PP clinic, since pro-choice people have absolutely zilch against both.
Click to expand...

Oh, I never, never thought it was pointless. And the clinic did shut down, but not before a worldwide organization was created and also the "40 Days for Life" campaign. :mrgreen:

But I should add here that I don't have any problem with a physical barrier such as a fence. There was a wrought iron one (and shrubs) at the PP clinic of which I speak, and it was both practical and attractive.
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, yes it is.

If I stand outside a health club and call every over-weight person who walks in a fatso, that's harassment. If they're on public property? Perhaps they could be arrested for being a public nuisance. I don't know the nuances of the law, but I do know that the fact we HAVE freedom of speech, the spoken word is responsible for an awful lot of harassment -- and most of it isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

By your reasoning, just having laws against harassment automatically infringes on free speech.
 
nota bene said:
Oh, I never, never thought it was pointless. And the clinic did shut down, but not before a worldwide organization was created and also the "40 Days for Life" campaign. :mrgreen:

But I should add here that I don't have any problem with a physical barrier such as a fence. There was a wrought iron one (and shrubs) at the PP clinic of which I speak, and it was both practical and attractive.
Click to expand...

You're not being clear on what it was that eventually shut the clinic down (you're talking about the PP clinic, right?).
 
nota bene said:
Good. You tell that to all the places such as Walmart that allow folks to sit outside and sell flag pins and Girl Scout cookies and whatever. Seeing them annoys me and forces me face being engaged and having to ignore them or say no thanks.
Click to expand...

I don't know what conversation that's supposed to address, but it's absolutely not this one.

nota bene said:
More seriously, I participated for 15 years--until the closing of this PP clinic, in fact--in silent protest against the abortions being performed there. In all those years, I never said one word, just stood on the sidewalk and prayed. Except for the occasional "sidewalk counselor," I never heard anybody say anything. People would pull into the parking lot, a waiting escort would walk to the car and escort the lady into the building, and that was that.

No abuse, no rancor, just people standing and praying...and exercising their rights of freedom of assembly and speech.
Click to expand...

While you get some kudos for living up to a higher standard of civility, I suppose, the object of that protest was to target and discomfort other private citizens. It's no less harassment than if a crowd of people sat in silent protest outside my house because I have an ugly face.
 
Cardinal said:
By your reasoning, just having laws against harassment automatically infringes on free speech.
Click to expand...

You don't understand criminal harassment laws. My understanding, which may or may not be correct, is that criminal harassment requires an ongoing pattern. Just calling someone an asshole doesn't rise to the level of criminal harassment (or civil, for that matter). Having a heated argument with someone does not rise to either level. Nor does name-calling. Neither does calling someone a baby killer. (Ouch, see how that hurts?) Here's more:

Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety. - See more at: Harassment - FindLaw
Click to expand...
 
Cardinal said:
You're not being clear on what it was that eventually shut the clinic down (you're talking about the PP clinic, right?).
Click to expand...

No one asked me what caused the clinic shutdown. It was refusal to upgrade the facilities in accordance with the law.
 
MaggieD said:
You don't understand criminal harassment laws. My understanding, which may or may not be correct, is that criminal harassment requires an ongoing pattern. Just calling someone an asshole doesn't rise to the level of criminal harassment (or civil, for that matter). Having a heated argument with someone does not rise to either level. Nor does name-calling. Neither does calling someone a baby killer. (Ouch, see how that hurts?) Here's more:
Click to expand...

(bold mine).

Right! A heated argument or an isolated name calling would not in fact live up to harassment, but targeted, ongoing protests against private citizens would.
 
Cardinal said:
I asked you what harassment was.
Click to expand...

Look at your conduct with me in these several posts. That's harassment. :rofl

May I have you arrested? Sue you in civil court? Got a druthers?
 
nota bene said:
No one asked me what caused the clinic shutdown. It was refusal to upgrade the facilities in accordance with the law.
Click to expand...

Oh...kayyyyyy. I have no idea why you brought that adoption, pre-natal care clinic comment into it, then.
 
Cardinal said:
(bold mine).

Right! A heated argument or an isolated name calling would not in fact live up to harassment, but targeted, ongoing protests against private citizens would.
Click to expand...

Wrong. But good try.
 
MaggieD said:
Look at your conduct with me in these several posts. That's harassment. :rofl

May I have you arrested? Sue you in civil court? Got a druthers?
Click to expand...

What you could do is ask a mod if my behavior breaks any of the forum rules (if you're feeling harassed).
 
MaggieD said:
Wrong. But good try.
Click to expand...

Uh, re-read your own definition. You just described the protests. How are they, to use your own words, not an "ongoing pattern" of behavior?
 
Cardinal said:
What you could do is ask a mod if my behavior breaks any of the forum rules.
Click to expand...

Cardinal, that has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.

I'm leaving this discussion with you. You aren't brave enough to challenge your beliefs. I don't have time for you right now.
 
MaggieD said:
I agree with that. I think it's awful. SCOTUS probably thinks it's awful, too. Allowing freedom is not always convenient, warm and fuzzy.
Click to expand...

So true, and protesting is a form of free speech, as long as they aren't violating any laws.
 
MaggieD said:
Cardinal, that has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.

I'm leaving this discussion with you. You aren't brave enough to challenge your beliefs. I don't have time for you right now.
Click to expand...

You yourself tripped over your own feet by attempting to say the protests were free speech, only when asked went ahead and defined harassment exactly as those protests were performed. It's you who don't want to acknowledge that your idea of what constitutes "free speech" is overly simplistic. Free speech isn't the Okami Code of public behavior, there are restrictions to it (such as the ubiquitous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example). But, seeing as your time is very important, I will leave you to it.
 
ChrisL said:
So true, and protesting is a form of free speech, as long as they aren't violating any laws.
Click to expand...

My concern is that by flying under the banner of "protesting" certain people and organizations are also flagrantly committing harassment.
 
There is no one size fits all when it comes to just about any human activity. As a believer in freedom and self determination, it would be hypocritical of me not to be also for free speech and I am all for it.
Now for this particular issue. People are and should be free to protest anywhere at any time and for any reason or cause. I recall a few years back in New York there were "zones" created for protests, of course well away from the main attraction which was one of the political parties' convention. It was a gross violation of free speech. Then again nothing is absolute, and it is a very easy transition from expressing one's position to harassment or becoming a public nuisance or safety hazard. Anticipating or predicting that is impossible and taking precautions only results in infringements on the rights of people. So I say let people protest in front of the clinic or anywhere they can legally and have the protest monitored by law enforcement. If and when the protest or some protesters over step the line let the cops do their jobs.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is a victory for free speech, but likely will make the abortion debate more contentious.:peace

Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests near abortion clinics.
The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics. State officials said the law was a response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.
The law was challenged on First Amendment grounds by opponents of abortion who said they sought to have quiet conversations with women entering clinics to tell them about alternatives to abortion.
The court was unanimous about the bottom line but divided on the reasoning. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote a relatively narrow majority opinion. He was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He suggested that the state could pursue other alternatives.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in a concurrence joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, said the majority’s approach was too tentative. The law, he said, is “unconstitutional root and branch.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a separate concurrence.
Click to expand...

Not to mention women and doctors being accosted and confronted entering and leaving clinics at their doorsteps, which may get out of hand.
 
MaggieD said:
Abortion clinics deserve no more protection than we give our war dead . . . a/k/a SCOTUS ruling of 2011 re Westboro Baptist Church.
Click to expand...

Uhh, not what I was getting at.

You said maybe it will entice some to pay for the woman's medical expenses. The thing I said is what will happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom