• 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 Buffer Zones For Abortion Clinic Protests

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The Supreme Court ruled on McCullen v. Coakley Thursday, striking down a Massachusetts law requiring protesters to stay at least 35 feet from an abortion clinic's entrance and walkways.In a unanimous opinion, the court held that such buffer zones violate First Amendment free speech rights.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. "It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as venues for the exchange of ideas," Roberts said. "Even today, they remain one of the few places where a speaker can be confident that he is not simply preaching to the choir. With respect to other means of communication, an individual confronted with an uncomfortable message can always turn the page, change the channel, or leave the Web site."
"Thus, even though the Act says nothing about speech on its face, there is no doubt—and respondents do not dis*pute—that it restricts access to traditional public fora and is therefore subject to First Amendment scrutiny," Roberts said.
Eleanor McCullen, the lead plaintiff in the case, is a member of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who argued the buffer zone violates her First Amendment right to free speech. "It's America," she told NPR earlier this year. "I should be able to walk and talk gently, lovingly, anywhere with anybody."
But abortion clinic escorts, owners and patient advocates claim the protesters that surround clinics on a daily basis and try to follow patients up to the door are anything but gentle. Roxanne Sutocky, a patient advocate at an abortion clinic in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, told The Huffington Post that she has had to coach numerous terrified patients through their walk past the protesters into the clinic.
Click to expand...


Read more @: Supreme Court Strikes Down Buffer Zones For Abortion Clinic Protests

In my opinion this is the correct decision. Protestors have the right to peacefully assemble on public spaces even if its over a really touchy subject such as abortion. There should be no "buffer zones" where people are not allowed to practice their right to free speech inside that "buffer zone".
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Supreme Court Strikes Down Buffer Zones For Abortion Clinic Protests

In my opinion this is the correct decision. Protestors have the right to peacefully assemble on public spaces even if its over a really touchy subject such as abortion. There should be no "buffer zones" where people are not allowed to practice their right to free speech inside that "buffer zone". [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I agree. Free speech must be unrestricted. Even if, and especially if, we disagree with what they say and how they say it.

And, before anyone says otherwise, this is not a victory for the anti-abortion crowd, but a true victory for Free Speech for ALL.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Supreme Court Strikes Down Buffer Zones For Abortion Clinic Protests

In my opinion this is the correct decision. Protestors have the right to peacefully assemble on public spaces even if its over a really touchy subject such as abortion. There should be no "buffer zones" where people are not allowed to practice their right to free speech inside that "buffer zone". [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Agreed, good job SCOTUS (Even though your power of Judicial Review isn't in the constitution good job ^_^).
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Supreme Court Strikes Down Buffer Zones For Abortion Clinic Protests

In my opinion this is the correct decision. Protestors have the right to peacefully assemble on public spaces even if its over a really touchy subject such as abortion. There should be no "buffer zones" where people are not allowed to practice their right to free speech inside that "buffer zone". [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

But there are "buffer zones" outside the Supreme Court .... ?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...rt-issues-new-rule-barring-protests-on-plaza/

kinda hypocritical no?
 
PeteEU said:
But there are "buffer zones" outside the Supreme Court .... ?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...rt-issues-new-rule-barring-protests-on-plaza/

kinda hypocritical no?
Click to expand...

The court clearly allows people to protest on the sidewalks around the court building just not ON the court steps or Plaza itself, as the Supreme Court holds TOTAL power in regards to the policies that are upheld in/on their court grounds (As do most judges mind you) this is not a violation of 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech just a reasonable restriction thereby. Keep in mind with the abortion clinics the Buffer was extended to surrounding sidewalks/streets within the area which are protected "Public Domain" areas. I'm not sure if the Supreme Court falls under a "Public Domain" property or not, but I don't think it does.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Supreme Court Strikes Down Buffer Zones For Abortion Clinic Protests

In my opinion this is the correct decision. Protestors have the right to peacefully assemble on public spaces even if its over a really touchy subject such as abortion. There should be no "buffer zones" where people are not allowed to practice their right to free speech inside that "buffer zone". [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

except for private events such as funerals courts are striking down these free speech zones left and right as unconstitutional. which they should be.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I agree. Free speech must be unrestricted. Even if, and especially if, we disagree with what they say and how they say it.

And, before anyone says otherwise, this is not a victory for the anti-abortion crowd, but a true victory for Free Speech for ALL.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree, and hopefully none of the anti-abortion folks will consider this some sort of victory. DemSocialist was right - this was the correct decision. It is in no way a referendum on abortion but is instead a positive ruling on free speech.
 
tres borrachos said:
Absolutely agree, and hopefully none of the anti-abortion folks will consider this some sort of victory. DemSocialist was right - this was the correct decision. It is in no way a referendum on abortion but is instead a positive ruling on free speech.
Click to expand...

They have been doing the same on college campuses and their so called free speech zones as well.
 
I agree with the decision, but now those Westboro Baptist Church douchebags are going to be allowed to go right up next to the casket with their protests at funerals. That sucks.
 
ludin said:
except for private events such as funerals courts are striking down these free speech zones left and right as unconstitutional. which they should be.
Click to expand...

But funerals, at least the vast majority that are held in publicly open cemeteries, are not private events. If there is no buffer zone at abortion clinics, there can't be buffer zones mandated at funerals.
 
The Man said:
But funerals, at least the vast majority that are held in publicly open cemeteries, are not private events. If there is no buffer zone at abortion clinics, there can't be buffer zones mandated at funerals.
Click to expand...

Funerals (at least Many funerals) in america are religious gatherings/events that hold a high ammount of meaning for the families of the deceased, one could say that allowing protesters at funerals which directly upsets and disturbs the practicing partie's observance of a religious practice. As such I believe the Freedom of Religion clause would trump the Freedom of Speech clause, at least for funerals which are private religious events.
 
The Man said:
But funerals, at least the vast majority that are held in publicly open cemeteries, are not private events. If there is no buffer zone at abortion clinics, there can't be buffer zones mandated at funerals.
Click to expand...

yes there can be a funeral is a private affair not a public one. while it might be held at a public cemetery the ceramony there is still private.
you don't have the right to harass people there.

there is a difference between a private funeral event and an abortion clinic.

if you want to try to be my guest but don't blame me when someone calls the cops for harassment.
i know i would be the first to do it.
 
The Man said:
I agree with the decision, but now those Westboro Baptist Church douchebags are going to be allowed to go right up next to the casket with their protests at funerals. That sucks.
Click to expand...

no they won't a funeral if a private none public event. even going to the cementary and any cermamony there is still considered private.
 
ludin said:
yes there can be a funeral is a private affair not a public one. while it might be held at a public cemetery the ceramony there is still private.
you don't have the right to harass people there.

there is a difference between a private funeral event and an abortion clinic.

if you want to try to be my guest but don't blame me when someone calls the cops for harassment.
Click to expand...

I can look up anyone's obituary in the newspaper and go to the funeral. It is not private. Would it be disrespectful to go to the funeral and protest right next to the casket? Hell yeah. But it is within freedom of speech. If they can't enforce buffer zones at abortion clinics, then they can't constitutionally enforce buffer zones at a funeral that is held in public.
 
The Man said:
I can look up anyone's obituary in the newspaper and go to the funeral. It is not private. Would it be disrespectful to go to the funeral and protest right next to the casket? Hell yeah. But it is within freedom of speech. If they can't enforce buffer zones at abortion clinics, then they can't constitutionally enforce buffer zones at a funeral that is held in public.
Click to expand...

Yes they can THE MAN. Because the PROTESTS are disturbing and prohibiting a RELIGIOUS PRACTICE (Most funerals are Religious) and thus Freedom of Speech would be subverted by Freedom of Religion. All funerals would be protected cept for those pesky atheist funerals.
 
ludin said:
no they won't a funeral if a private none public event. even going to the cementary and any cermamony there is still considered private.
Click to expand...

The funeral is not private. Anyone can go to anyone's funeral if it is held in a publicly open funeral.

It is the one backfire of this Supreme Court decision.
 
MasterLiberty said:
Yes they can THE MAN. Because the PROTESTS are disturbing and prohibiting a RELIGIOUS PRACTICE (Most funerals are Religious) and thus Freedom of Speech would be subverted by Freedom of Religion. All funerals would be protected cept for those pesky atheist funerals.
Click to expand...

Separation of church and state. Freedom of religion does not trump freedom of speech in this country. People are free to practice their religion in public, and people are free to protest right next to them if they wish.
 
MasterLiberty said:
Funerals (at least Many funerals) in america are religious gatherings/events that hold a high ammount of meaning for the families of the deceased, one could say that allowing protesters at funerals which directly upsets and disturbs the practicing partie's observance of a religious practice. As such I believe the Freedom of Religion clause would trump the Freedom of Speech clause, at least for funerals which are private religious events.
Click to expand...

actually no that is not true because Westboro Baptist can't violate your right to freedom of religion because they aren't the government. The Constitution limits the government not the Church. But funerals can be on private property as synagogues, mosques, temples and churches all can own the cemeteries so they can ban whatever they want inside. Now at municipal ones there could be a problem but to suggest that because it is a religious service there can be no disturbance is not a legal position.

This ruling, while correct does pose a new problem. What can the protesters do and not do. If they go back to attacking women verbally and pushing things in their face they should be arrested for assault. I think we may have to organize armed escorts. (that seems to be a thing the right should get behind).
 
The Man said:
The funeral is not private. Anyone can go to anyone's funeral if it is held in a publicly open funeral.

It is the one backfire of this Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...

except that is not always true.
 
The Man said:
Separation of church and state. Freedom of religion does not trump freedom of speech in this country. People are free to practice their religion in public, and people are free to protest right next to them if they wish.
Click to expand...

Why are we referring to seperation of church and state?? It is irrelavent in the point I am making as the federal government is not showing unilateral favoratism of a religion. Freedom of Religion = Freedom of speech one does not outrank the other in terms of importance nor does one trump the other, they are applied to different circumstances.

Also not all CEMETARIES are public domain, in fact MANY CEMETARIES are privately owned by developers and those developers have the RIGHT to protect their clients privacy from invasion by people (like westboro) or otherwise. A funeral is a private function, of a private nature, with very tender emotions involved, UNLESS it is DECLARED to be OPEN to the public it is exhempt from freedom of speech provisions.
 
MasterLiberty said:
Why are we referring to seperation of church and state?? It is irrelavent in the point I am making as the federal government is not showing unilateral favoratism of a religion. Freedom of Religion = Freedom of speech one does not outrank the other in terms of importance nor does one trump the other, they are applied to different circumstances.

Also not all CEMETARIES are public domain, in fact MANY CEMETARIES are privately owned by developers and those developers have the RIGHT to protect their clients privacy from invasion by people (like westboro) or otherwise. A funeral is a private function, of a private nature, with very tender emotions involved, UNLESS it is DECLARED to be OPEN to the public it is exhempt from freedom of speech provisions.
Click to expand...

Protesters at a funeral are not prohibiting the funeral attendees from practicing their religion.

I'm not advocating protesting at a funeral, I detest it, but this will be an issue, and I wouldn't doubt that the buffer zones at funerals are banned, in light of this SC decision.
 
The Man said:
Protesters at a funeral are not prohibiting the funeral attendees from practicing their religion.
Click to expand...

They are DISTURBING THE PEACE of a quiet event, breaking the focus of the practicioners and thereby keeping them from fully practicing the tennants of their religious faith. Also if Freedom of Religion were EXCLUSIVE to the Congress then would it be fair for an OWNER of a PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT to not allow admittance to: Jews and Muslims? What say you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom