Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court shows hypocrisy (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  coffeetalk (4+ / 0-)

    I see your knowledge of the law is better than mine. Your
    passing on laws that don't work here. Exceptions
    should be allowed when violence and intimation is used.
    The kind of person who shows up at the clinics has to be kept as far away as possible. I can't yell fire in a theatre.
    I can however bother folks trying to go a clinic.

    Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

    by Vet63 on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 09:55:23 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  And the Court absolutely said that states (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, Pi Li, VClib

      can pass laws to prevent violence and intimidation.  It's just when you pass a law that strips everyone else of their First Amendment rights in a public forum like a public sidewalk, you have to show that stripping other people of those constitutional rights is the "least restrictive" way -- pretty much the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY -- to prevent that violence and intimidation. The Court pointed to other buffer zones that aren't broad enough to prohibit me from walking up to someone on a public sidewalk and said, look, there are buffer zones that don't completely deprive everyone of their First Amendment rights in a public forum.  

      All it said in this opinion is that depriving everyone (including people who have not and will not do any of that violence and physical intimidation) of their First Amendment rights in a public forum is NOT the "least restrictive" way to do that.

      This opinion in NO WAY suggests that states don't have the power to pass laws to prevent blocking access to clinics or physical violence or intimidation.  It simply said that the laws have to be directed to just that -- preventing people from blocking access or engaging in physical violence or intimindation -- and the law CAN'T be directed to preventing someone from walking up to someone else in a public forum like a public sidewalk and simply saying something to them like "God doesn't want you to abort your baby."   (And if what is said would be a physical threat, then that's already illegal.)

      A woman may not WANT to hear someone say "God doesn't want you to abort your baby" when she's walking into a clinic.  But the First Amendment means for all of us that, in a public forum, government can't prevent someone from saying something to us that we don't want to hear.    

    •  I agree with you. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes, corvo

      Coffeetalk speaks of the law, but the reality is that the Supreme Court decision can put women's lives at risk. That is a moral issue. To speak of "first amendment rights" alone is inadequate.

      •  "First Amendment rights" are inadequate??? (4+ / 0-)

        Who gets to decide when "First Amendment rights" are inadequate?  

        This is not about putting women's lives at risk.  This is about a law that prevented a person -- McCullen -- from walking up to someone on a public sidewalk and saying something to that person that the person may or may not find offensive.  READ THE OPINION.  The SCOTUS absolutely said that states can pass laws -- including some types of buffer zones -- to protect women's lives.   Absolutely.  

        What government can't do is take away the First Amendment rights of everybody based solely on the fear that  someone might commit a crime.  That's antithetical to everything our Constitution stands for.  To do something as drastic -- and yes, it's drastic under decades of First Amendment law -- as eliminating all free speech in a public forum, a state needs to pretty much show that's the ONLY way it can give any protect the lives of women -- no other laws give them any protection.  And the Court looked at other laws, and other buffer zones, and said to that state, "you can't meet that burden, because we see those other laws.  And you can't meet that burden because you can't show that before 2007, when this law was enacted, there were a whole bunch of physical attacks on women and this law stopped them."

        •  Who gets to decide when First Amendment rights (0+ / 0-)

          are inadequate?

          Why, anyone who doesn't think the First Amendment is perfect (morally speaking) and anyone who can alter the First Amendment's force or interpretation (legally speaking).

          As the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment unintentionally demonstrated. ;-)

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 04:26:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site