Buffer zone unconstitutional

[StrawberryBlondie]

Unanimous decision. The MA buffer zone violates the 1st amendment.

[karinothing]

It seems that they focused on the idea that it used public walkways/sidewalks. So interesting to see if it didn't involve those kind of areas. Although I geuss you wouldn't really need a buffer zone otherwise since private businesses could keep people off their property.

[josieposy]

At the risk of sounding like an idiot - the what now? I don't know if I heard about this.

[pixy0stix]

Jun 26, 2014 9:38:20 GMT -5 josieposy said:

At the risk of sounding like an idiot - the what now? I don't know if I heard about this.

I'm here.

[karinothing]

Buffer zones around abortion clinics where protestors can't get in patients faces.

[NewOrleans]

Jun 26, 2014 9:38:20 GMT -5 josieposy said:

At the risk of sounding like an idiot - the what now? I don't know if I heard about this.

Abortion clinics.  The protesters apparently have the right to an audience.

[josieposy]

Ooh okay. Thanks for explaining.

[NewOrleans]

Can you link the decision here?

I hate this decision. Talking to a coerced audience is not protesting the government. It's just not.

Eta: the best thing to do is get all clinics on private property where the parking lot is on premises.  That is hard to swing in a citye like Chicago, though.  This works well in suburbs for relatively new buildings.  

[StrawberryBlondie]

I can't wait to read it. I think I'm probably going to think it's correct. Which I kind of hate myself for.

[Cicero]

Jun 26, 2014 9:40:41 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jun 26, 2014 9:38:20 GMT -5 josieposy said:

At the risk of sounding like an idiot - the what now? I don't know if I heard about this.

Abortion clinics.  The protesters apparently have the right to an audience.

the government has never had the ability to discriminate based upon the content of speech in public places. The way they wrote the law was stupid and asking to be struck down.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jun 26, 2014 9:42:22 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Can you link the decision here?

I hate this decision. Talking to a coerced audience is not protesting the government. It's just not.

I'm on my tablet, so I don't think I can. ESF?

[karinothing]

Jun 26, 2014 9:43:31 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I can't wait to read it. I think I'm probably going to think it's correct. Which I kind of hate myself for.

Yes. I think it is correct too. The police can tell protestors to move out of the way and let woment through. They just can't ban protest from the sidewalk.

[Cicero]

Jun 26, 2014 9:43:31 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I can't wait to read it. I think I'm probably going to think it's correct. Which I kind of hate myself for.

Don't hate yourself. If it says what I think it is going to it's an easy fix.

[laurenpetro]

Shit. I was hoping it was just polling places.

[karinothing]

I don't know if the opinion is up yet. I am just reading SCOTUS blog lol. They usually post the opiniona soon as its available.

[NewOrleans]

Jun 26, 2014 9:44:11 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Jun 26, 2014 9:40:41 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Abortion clinics.  The protesters apparently have the right to an audience.

the government has never had the ability to discriminate based upon the content of speech in public places. The way they wrote the law was stupid and asking to be struck down.

1.  Can you elaborate on the poor writing?

2. Can the law be rewritten in a proper way, or has that ship now sailed?  (MA ct struck down upskirt photo law, and the legislature promptly rewrote the law, which is why I ask)

[pixy0stix]

MA wrote a law prohibiting protests on public sidewalks?

[Cicero]

I've not yet read the decision, but IIRC the challenge was based on the fact that the buffer didn't apply to people who work at the clinic, not that it existed in and of itself.

[karinothing]

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf

opinion

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jun 26, 2014 9:47:51 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

MA wrote a law prohibiting protests on public sidewalks?

No. It prohibited anti-abortion-related protests on a public sidewalks within 35 feet of an abortion clinic. Its really terribly written.

[Deleted]

for what it is worth those protesters were scary and harassing at the PP on Mass Ave in Boston even when you were just going in for pills.

[pixy0stix]

Am I reading correctly that the law can be re-written if it narrows down the scope of the limitations. Such as, "No protests during business hours," etc.?

[ESF]

Jun 26, 2014 9:43:31 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I can't wait to read it. I think I'm probably going to think it's correct. Which I kind of hate myself for.

I'm just getting online now, so I haven't read it yet.  But if I recall, my initial impression when I heard about the suit was Team Speech.  The law sounded like an overreach.  

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jun 26, 2014 9:59:12 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Am I reading correctly that the law can be re-written if it narrows down the scope of the limitations. Such as, "No protests during business hours," etc.?

I think it can be rewritten, but I don't think they could enact a buffer zone.

[karinothing]

Jun 26, 2014 10:01:36 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jun 26, 2014 9:59:12 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Am I reading correctly that the law can be re-written if it narrows down the scope of the limitations. Such as, "No protests during business hours," etc.?

I think it can be rewritten, but I don't think they could enact a buffer zone.

Yes, it seems like they said no buffer zones no matter what size. But they could do things like have the police escort women or get specific court orders tailored to specific clinic issues. The court just wants a more narrow law it seems.

[StrawberryBlondie]

It was already limited to hours the facility was open

[ESF]

OK, I'm catching up now. Here's the link to when we talked about it before.

pandce.proboards.com/thread/278049/free-speech-collides-abortion-rights

The law said that only abortion clinic employees could speak on the public sideways within a 35 foot radius of the clinic. It's not that the buffer zone was unconstitutional, it's that the law gave one opinion a right to speak, and other opinions were silenced. It's content-based discrimination, which has always been upheld.

There are a lot of organizations for whom I would not like them to have the power of silencing critics outside their operations. People who want to protest churches could be kicked off public grounds, while those affiliated with the church would be free to speak there.

This is an excellent decision.


ETA - I thought buffer zones were constitutional?  Did the opinion throw those out?  They seem like content neutral time, place, manner restrictions.  Huh.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jun 26, 2014 10:09:32 GMT -5 ESF said:

OK, I'm catching up now. Here's the link to when we talked about it before.

pandce.proboards.com/thread/278049/free-speech-collides-abortion-rights

The law said that only abortion clinic employees could speak on the public sideways within a 35 foot radius of the clinic. It's not that the buffer zone was unconstitutional, it's that the law gave one opinion a right to speak, and other opinions were silenced. It's content-based discrimination, which has always been upheld.

There are a lot of organizations for whom I would not like them to have the power of silencing critics outside their operations. People who want to protest churches could be kicked off public grounds, while those affiliated with the church would be free to speak there.

This is an excellent decision.


ETA - I thought buffer zones were constitutional?  Did the opinion throw those out?  They seem like content neutral time, place, manner restrictions.  Huh.

The opinion specifically held this law is content neutral.

[sb]

I get the decision, but the opinion itself is really pissing me off.

"Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks -- sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history"

Oh, they just want to have a CONVERSATION.

[PinkSquirrel]

Most of us doing abortion work in MA knew it would be struck down. I'm confused that it seems they're saying buffer zones are an issue in general. My understanding had been the plan was to tweak the law and get it passed again (not expected to be a huge issue in MA), but if they're saying buffer zones are out all together .... FUCK.