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.
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.
SCOTUS blog says this brings into question other buffer zone rulings, but they didn't offer a clear answer to what the result was.
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.
Huh, weird. OK I'll have to read it later, as I'm clearly missing something here.
Post by PinkSquirrel on Jun 26, 2014 10:50:54 GMT -5
Oh fuck you Supreme Court, you have clearly never walked into an abortion clinic with protesters. Caring consensual conversations my ass. Patients are afraid of the fucking protesters even with the buffer zone. They actually said this shit ...
"While the Act may allow petitioners to “protest” outside the buffer zones, petition ers are not protestors; they seek not merely to express their opposi tion to abortion, but to engage in personal, caring, consensual conver sations with women about various alternatives."
Oh fuck you Supreme Court, you have clearly never walked into an abortion clinic with protesters. Caring consensual conversations my ass. Patients are afraid of the fucking protesters even with the buffer zone. They actually said this shit ...
"While the Act may allow petitioners to “protest” outside the buffer zones, petition ers are not protestors; they seek not merely to express their opposi tion to abortion, but to engage in personal, caring, consensual conver sations with women about various alternatives."
Let's be clear here. He's not talking about protesters in general (and says as much). He's talking about the specific people challenging the law. I'm not sure if their specific mode of protest is disputed.
Oh fuck you Supreme Court, you have clearly never walked into an abortion clinic with protesters. Caring consensual conversations my ass. Patients are afraid of the fucking protesters even with the buffer zone. They actually said this shit ...
"While the Act may allow petitioners to “protest” outside the buffer zones, petition ers are not protestors; they seek not merely to express their opposi tion to abortion, but to engage in personal, caring, consensual conver sations with women about various alternatives."
Let's be clear here. He's not talking about protesters in general (and says as much). He's talking about the specific people challenging the law. I'm not sure if their specific mode of protest is disputed.
Have you been outside an abortion clinic? The implication that people just want to have caring consensual conversations with people is frankly bullshit.
Let's be clear here. He's not talking about protesters in general (and says as much). He's talking about the specific people challenging the law. I'm not sure if their specific mode of protest is disputed.
Have you been outside an abortion clinic? The implication that people just want to have caring consensual conversations with people is frankly bullshit.
Yes I have. The one in St. Paul is next to a Dairy Queen and protesters there harass people actually on their way to DQ.
It doesn't matter anyway. That part isn't important to the holding.
Yes I have. The one in St. Paul is next to a Dairy Queen and protesters there harass people actually on their way to DQ.
It doesn't matter anyway. That part isn't important to the holding.
It does matter though. What the SCOTUS says matters. Even if it wasn't important to the holding when the SCOTUS starts referring to blatant harassment as caring consensual conversation I have a problem with that.
I'm more pissed off at the nonsense spewed in the opinion than I am that it was struck down. It was expected that it would be struck down and we'd have to figure something out. They have thrown an additional wrench into things but taking issue with buffer zones in general, but I'm confident people will work to get a solution that works to keep patients and workers safe in MA.
Post by Velar Fricative on Jun 26, 2014 11:54:02 GMT -5
I still don't think I understand the implications of this decision. Is SCOTUS being (unsurprisingly) deliberately vague about what this means for protests outside all abortion clinics?
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.
My sister used to work at that PP and received death threats. In the early 2000s.
This is sadly unsurprising. The late 90s/early 2000s had a lot of violence from Operation Rescue-types targeted at abortion clinics. Dr. Slepian, the Birmingham bombings, etc.
My sister used to work at that PP and received death threats. In the early 2000s.
This is sadly unsurprising. The late 90s/early 2000s had a lot of violence from Operation Rescue-types targeted at abortion clinics. Dr. Slepian, the Birmingham bombings, etc.
Not to mention John Salvi who shot up two PP clinics in Boston killing two receptionists
edit- sorry pinksquirrel didn't read the whole thread - but it certainly can't be mentioned enough here.
While it seems to have been the right choice from a legal standpoint, it's still concerning from a "harassment of women" standpoint. I mean, I guess the MA legislature should have been a bit narrower in scope when they wrote the law, but now this opens up a can of worms.
I just got emails from both NARAL and PP about this "shocking disregard" for American women and their safety and ability to choose, yadda yadda.
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.
OK, can you (or any legal voice here) answer me like I am 5 on these issues:
1. this decision pre-supposes that the employee or escort speaks at all on the public way. It pre-supposes that the employee or escort speaks about the topic at hand. That is not what employees and escorts do outside a clinic; they greet, welcome, and small talk. They are thus not actually privileged to speak within the buffer zone. Why doesn't this matter?
2. even if the employee or escort were speaking to the clinic guests about the topic at hand, why is that simply not considered a necessary part of his/her job to be able to do so and therefore not actually being privileged by the law, or only being privileged insofar as he is executing his job duties?
I still don't think I understand the implications of this decision. Is SCOTUS being (unsurprisingly) deliberately vague about what this means for protests outside all abortion clinics?
My best guess is that states are going to have to find other ways to ensure patient and employee safety than telling people they can't speak on a public sidewalk.
While it seems to have been the right choice from a legal standpoint, it's still concerning from a "harassment of women" standpoint. I mean, I guess the MA legislature should have been a bit narrower in scope when they wrote the law, but now this opens up a can of worms.
I just got emails from both NARAL and PP about this "shocking disregard" for American women and their safety and ability to choose, yadda yadda.
Yep. Donating right now.
I do not understand how there is no compelling state interest here.
You guys know that Jermys and I are regularly in and out of an abortion clinic. I don't know that we're impacted, exactly, because our state doesn't have a buffer law being struck down right now. But this kind of shit energizes these people, who are terrible at best and terrifying at worst, and I am distinctly uncomfortable with this newly-unleashed access to escorts/employees.
In fact, I predict an imminent shitstorm at the clinic in question. MA locals, let us know if there's any news footage. I bet they will be violating FACE within minutes if it hasn't already happened. I also predict more violence in the next couple years, likely as a direct result of this decision.
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.
OK, can you (or any legal voice here) answer me like I am 5 on these issues:
1. this decision pre-supposes that the employee or escort speaks at all on the public way. It pre-supposes that the employee or escort speaks about the topic at hand. That is not what employees and escorts do outside a clinic; they greet, welcome, and small talk. They are thus not actually privileged to speak within the buffer zone. Why doesn't this matter?
2. even if the employee or escort were speaking to the clinic guests about the topic at hand, why is that simply not considered a necessary part of his/her job to be able to do so and therefore not actually being privileged by the law, or only being privileged insofar as he is executing his job duties?
I'll take a stab at it... But I'm really tired so apologies if I'm not making sense.
1. I don't think it does presuppose that.
2. It would matter because if they were allowed to speak about the topic at hand it wouldn't be content neutral. The state would choose to allow one side to speak but silence the other. Constitutionally, the state can't do that because that's restricting speech based on viewpoint.
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.
I haven't read the opinion yet, but I wonder of the law was written more narrowly to address specific conduct, of that could then work. So no video taping, photographing, intentional physical contact, "harassment" that impedes one's ability to access the facility or threatens a patients right to privacy, a volume restriction... That sort of thing. Instead of restricting space, restrict actions or conduct... Strategically would that work better?
I was thinking something like that too.
I mean, there has to be a track record of what people do, right? Why not specifically prohibit that stuff?
I'll take a stab at it... But I'm really tired so apologies if I'm not making sense.
1. I don't think it does presuppose that.
2. It would matter because if they were allowed to speak about the topic at hand it wouldn't be content neutral. The state would choose to allow one side to speak but silence the other. Constitutionally, the state can't do that because that's restricting speech based on viewpoint.
Thank you for trying. I don't understand why executing your job duties is not inherently neutral and thus outside of the whole equation altogether (#2). But thank you, strawberry.
I haven't read the opinion yet, but I wonder of the law was written more narrowly to address specific conduct, of that could then work. So no video taping, photographing, intentional physical contact, "harassment" that impedes one's ability to access the facility or threatens a patients right to privacy, a volume restriction... That sort of thing. Instead of restricting space, restrict actions or conduct... Strategically would that work better?
I was thinking something like that too.
I mean, there has to be a track record of what people do, right? Why not specifically prohibit that stuff?
They will run into the same problem if they try to restrict a behavior short of physical contact, don't you think?
With video and photo, there are probably separate state laws governing them. Usually it's something generic like "you can't photograph people in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy." But I don't know that anyone has ever been taken to task about whether a medical facility is a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Which seems like a no-brainer given that they publish them online (for example, on their church/organization website). There is even a shitty-ass, psychopathically cobbled-together website called Blood Workers posting zoomed pictures of escorts.
eta: and yes, there is a track record. Employees and escorts alike document every shift, every day.
I mean, there has to be a track record of what people do, right? Why not specifically prohibit that stuff?
They will run into the same problem if they try to restrict a behavior short of physical contact, don't you think?
With video and photo, there are probably separate state laws governing them. Usually it's something generic like "you can't photograph people in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy." But I don't know that anyone has ever been taken to task about whether a medical facility is a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Which seems like a no-brainer given that they publish them online (for example, on their church/organization website). There is even a shitty-ass, psychopathically cobbled-together website called Blood Workers posting zoomed pictures of escorts.
eta: and yes, there is a track record. Employees and escorts alike document every shift, every day.
Massachusetts has very strict guidelines on recordings of voices. You can't record a voice without permission. So public filming is actually not permissible if it includes voice without getting explicit permission of each person whose voice is recorded.
I'll take a stab at it... But I'm really tired so apologies if I'm not making sense.
1. I don't think it does presuppose that.
2. It would matter because if they were allowed to speak about the topic at hand it wouldn't be content neutral. The state would choose to allow one side to speak but silence the other. Constitutionally, the state can't do that because that's restricting speech based on viewpoint.
Thank you for trying. I don't understand why executing your job duties is not inherently neutral and thus outside of the whole equation altogether (#2). But thank you, strawberry.
Because it's still speech, even if part of your job. If they are saying, hypothetically, "abortion is awesome and you'll totally go to heaven just for getting one" and someone else is in that same space saying "abortion is evil and you're going to hell" the government would be saying its OK to tell someone abortions are awesome but not that abortions are evil. Thus saying its only OK to speak one viewpoint.
Post by cinnamoncox on Jun 26, 2014 13:11:25 GMT -5
The only local story I'm seeing so far is from Boston dot com so take it for what that's worth. It just says that the protests were only happening at the Boston site, and only on Saturdays. And they (govt) can't curb speech on the public sidewalks. It states the buffet zone was enacted partially due to the 1994 killing of PP employees.
Because it's still speech, even if part of your job. If they are saying, hypothetically, "abortion is awesome and you'll totally go to heaven just for getting one" and someone else is in that same space saying "abortion is evil and you're going to hell" the government would be saying its OK to tell someone abortions are awesome but not that abortions are evil. Thus saying its only OK to speak one viewpoint.
lol, I am probably frustrating you, and I swear I don't mean to be difficult and I'm not trying to argue with you, only the position. Just, this is exactly what I mean by pre-supposing their speech.
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.
OK, can you (or any legal voice here) answer me like I am 5 on these issues:
1. this decision pre-supposes that the employee or escort speaks at all on the public way. It pre-supposes that the employee or escort speaks about the topic at hand. That is not what employees and escorts do outside a clinic; they greet, welcome, and small talk. They are thus not actually privileged to speak within the buffer zone. Why doesn't this matter?
2. even if the employee or escort were speaking to the clinic guests about the topic at hand, why is that simply not considered a necessary part of his/her job to be able to do so and therefore not actually being privileged by the law, or only being privileged insofar as he is executing his job duties?
I haven't read it yet, so I'm talking out of my ass here but I'll try to guess based on how I would reason.
1. It matters because it's not about whether someone is electing their right to speak, but rather, whether people have an equal opportunity to speak. Even if the workers don't typically do it, they still have a right to speak. They could, and I imagine at least one of them has exercised a right at some point or another, or will find a reason to need to do so. Because of that, it's unconstitutional to give one group a right to speak on public grounds, require another group to be silent, and the deciding factor for that is their speech.
If the law said that only Republicans can broadcast political ads on NPR, and they chose not to broadcast on NPR, would that law be OK simply because they decided their money would be better spent elsewhere?
2. The problem there is two-fold. It requires the government to analyze what speech is necessary to do the job, and what speech is not. It is not only administratively unfeasible, but would create a nightmare and a litigation breeding ground. Second, it's public property, not private. The government doesn't have to give private businesses exclusive right of use of its property.
And really, if the entire Court is failing to note the reality of what clinic protests look like, THAT is a lawyer problem. How did THAT not get adequately conveyed?